On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:06 AM, Mark Kettenis <mark.kette...@xs4all.nl> wrote: ... >> AFAICT, we don't use SIGALRM in any of our install or rc scripting, so >> let's remove the unnecessary signal work. >> >> ok? > > Why? The standard still allows our current behaviour. And it's not a > particular invasive bit of code.
It can't be relied on in portable code (GNU coreutils 8.4.37 doesn't support it, for example), so since we don't use it it's a waste of code and cycles. Why have this wart in the code and docs for a wart caused by the historical implementation? Philip
