Re: [PATCH] Replacement for the sigs_to_ignore hack in timeout.c

[Pádraig Brady]

Eric Blake wrote:
> On the other hand, POSIX is explicit that mixing signal and sigaction is
> not portable.  For that matter, now that gnulib provides a guaranteed
> sigaction, why don't we just change all of coreutils to use it?  Affected
> are: csplit, dd, install, ls, nohup, sort, tee, and timeout.

Good idea.

Perhaps we should just define our own signal()
or bsd_signal() that calls sigaction() appropriately.
I find signal() a much simpler interface than sigaction().