* bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
@ 2010-11-12 18:57 jidanni
2019-10-14 1:10 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: jidanni @ 2010-11-12 18:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 7388
"Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway? (yes or no)"
Why is there no third choice: "let them live on, but exit emacs"?
Hasn't emacs ever heard of bash's $ help disown etc.? How could mighty
emacs not be capable of things like that?
And the whole thing should be reworded clearer too.
Perhaps even implement choosing which processes are to live on after
emacs exits.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
2010-11-12 18:57 bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs jidanni
@ 2019-10-14 1:10 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-14 7:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-10-14 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jidanni; +Cc: 7388
jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
> "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway? (yes or no)"
> Why is there no third choice: "let them live on, but exit emacs"?
> Hasn't emacs ever heard of bash's $ help disown etc.? How could mighty
> emacs not be capable of things like that?
> And the whole thing should be reworded clearer too.
> Perhaps even implement choosing which processes are to live on after
> emacs exits.
I don't think implementing this would be impossible (although perhaps a
bit tricky to make it work on all OS-es: I have no idea), but I've never
felt a need for this. If there's no good use case, then I don't see the
point, so I'm closing this bug report.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
2019-10-14 1:10 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-10-14 7:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-14 7:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: 7388, jidanni
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:10:14 +0200
> Cc: 7388@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> jidanni@jidanni.org writes:
>
> > "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway? (yes or no)"
> > Why is there no third choice: "let them live on, but exit emacs"?
> > Hasn't emacs ever heard of bash's $ help disown etc.? How could mighty
> > emacs not be capable of things like that?
> > And the whole thing should be reworded clearer too.
> > Perhaps even implement choosing which processes are to live on after
> > emacs exits.
>
> I don't think implementing this would be impossible (although perhaps a
> bit tricky to make it work on all OS-es: I have no idea), but I've never
> felt a need for this. If there's no good use case, then I don't see the
> point, so I'm closing this bug report.
Right. Emacs subprocesses generally are connected to Emacs via pipes
or PTYs, so letting them live when Emacs exits will leave a broken
process whose standard handles point to the great void.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-14 7:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2010-11-12 18:57 bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs jidanni
2019-10-14 1:10 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-14 7:09 ` Eli Zaretskii
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).