On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 15:54:53 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>>> does this mean you need to start task-a, wait a little and then start
>>> task b to run concurrently with task-a?
>>
>> Exactly. [...]
>>
>> It sound a bit confusion but the bottom line is, yes, I need to do
>> exactly what you've descri
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 04:09:32PM +0200, T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:58:33 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
> >> >> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed
> >> >> in sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after
> >> >> background task-a has p
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:58:33 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>
[snip]
>> does this mean you need to start task-a, wait a little and then start task
>> b to run concurrently with task-a?
>
> Exactly.
>
> One example is my TK script. I
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 09:58:33 -0700, Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
>> >> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed
>> >> in sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after
>> >> background task-a has properly started.
>> >>
>> >> So far I haven't found a good w
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 10:59:30AM +0200, T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:10:43 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> >> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
> >> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
> >> task-a has properly started.
>
On 07/17/2006 03:59 AM, T wrote:
[...]
{ task-a ; task-b ; } &
to avoid needlessly forking.
This is the common theme for all the answers so far. But the problem is
that my background tasks are real background tasks, eg. emacs and tk
scripts, that they'd not finish and return.
So I guess th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
T wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:10:43 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>
>>> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
>>> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
>>> task-a has properly started.
On Mon, 17 Jul 2006 00:10:43 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
>> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
>> task-a has properly started.
>>
>> So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
>>
>
On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 06:36:55AM -0400, Gary R. Leaf wrote:
> >hi
> >
> >I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
> >sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
> >task-a has properly started.
> >
> >So far I haven't found a good way to do
T wrote:
hi
I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
task-a has properly started.
So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
task-a & sleep 2; task-b &
but that 'sleep 2' has change
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
>sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
>task-a has properly started.
>So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
> task-a & sleep 2; task-b &
>but that 'sle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
T wrote:
> hi
>
> I find that in many cases I need my background tasks to be executed in
> sequence. Ie, I need background task-b to start right after background
> task-a has properly started.
>
> So far I haven't found a good way to do it. I used
>
12 matches
Mail list logo
