'su lfs' dropping into the background
gschafer at zip.com.au
Wed Jan 21 15:17:16 PST 2004
On Wed, Jan 21, 2004 at 06:10:25PM -0500, Bryan Kadzban wrote:
> Why not /dev/null, out of curiosity? (Anderson's post)
Alex is in a time warp due to intermittent dialup and will not have seen
Anderson's post until after his own. I'm sure Alex will agree /dev/null is
the way to go.
> Actually, this may well be the problem (version of bash, that is). From
> the bash CHANGES file (the first part of
> Fixed a bug that caused the shell process to end up in a different
> process group than the controlling terminal if a job-control shell was
> run with `exec' in the startup files.
> This was changed between bash 2.05-beta2 and 2.05-release (not 2.04 and
> 2.05-anything), and I'm also not sure about what being in a different
> process group does (maybe it prevents wait() calls?). But it looks like
> it might be part of the issue, at least.
Wow, well spotted. If that's the case and it's only one busted version of
bash that exhibits this problem, we might be able to just make a note and
not punish the rest. I haven't tested it yet, but if we drop the exec then I
get the feeling the user would have to exit twice to leave the lfs user's
environment which IMHO is not acceptable (if that's indeed what happens).
More information about the lfs-dev