From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dato@net.com.org.es (Adeodato =?utf-8?B?U2ltw7M=?=)
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 2009 20:37:25 +0200
Subject: [sup-talk] sup ignoring SIGTERM?
In-Reply-To: <1249502171-sup-8079@masanjin.net>
References: <1249481294-sup-9967@chistera.yi.org>
	<1249502171-sup-8079@masanjin.net>
Message-ID: <20090806183725.GA8363@chistera.yi.org>

+ William Morgan (Wed, 05 Aug 2009 13:03:09 -0700):

> Reformatted excerpts from Adeodato Sim?'s message of 2009-08-05:
> > it is my impression that sup is ignoring SIGTERM, whereas I would be
> > expecting for sup to clean up (including removal of the lock file) and
> > exit normally upon receiving this signal.

> Good point. I've fixed that in branch ncurses-fixes, which I've merged
> into next. Let me know if it works for you.

Everything seems to work fine as of 3478e40, including sup terminating
upon SIGTERM. If I may, I'd suggest normal termination instead of
raising an exception. IMHO, it is expected that programs that capture
SIGTERM, will do cleanup and exit normally, rather than behave as if an
error had happened. (Perhaps it'd be difficult to exit sup cleanly from
the handler in any other way than an exception: that, I don't know.)

Thanks, in any case.

-- 
- Are you sure we're good?
- Always.
        -- Rory and Lorelai