[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: rm patch suggestion
From: |
Marcus Brinkmann |
Subject: |
Re: rm patch suggestion |
Date: |
Tue, 7 May 2002 22:49:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.3.28i |
On Tue, May 07, 2002 at 10:25:50PM +0200, Oystein Viggen wrote:
> Does this mean that translators can refuse to go away, even with -f?
> I think I see another line of abuse for creative users..
No translator can refuse a kill -9, and no translator can avoid being
detached from the parent filesystem on the parent filesystems will.
However, settrans -g is just a friendly request to leave, while -fg is an
unfriendly request to leave ("go even if you have live users"). -d means to
the parent filesystems: "detach it from yourself" (the parent filesystem
itself might ignore the request of course :)
kill -9 is the very only way to really, really get rid off a translator, but
we want -fg, -g, -TERM and everything to work as expected of course (for
trusted translators anyway).
If in doubt, read the source! :)
Thanks,
Marcus
--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org brinkmd@debian.org
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org marcus@gnu.org
Marcus.Brinkmann@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
http://www.marcus-brinkmann.de
Re: rm patch suggestion, Oystein Viggen, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Roland McGrath, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Niels Möller, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Oystein Viggen, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Niels Möller, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/07
Re: rm patch suggestion, Niels Möller, 2002/05/08
Re: rm patch suggestion, Marcus Brinkmann, 2002/05/08
Re: rm patch suggestion, Niels Möller, 2002/05/08