From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <e@80x24.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-ASN:  
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00,
	T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
	version=3.4.2
Received: from localhost (dcvr.yhbt.net [127.0.0.1])
	by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 222F41F8C4;
	Mon, 14 Mar 2022 22:14:29 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 22:14:28 +0000
From: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>
To: Julien Moutinho <julm+public-inbox@sourcephile.fr>
Cc: meta@public-inbox.org, Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] t/lei-sigpipe.t: ensure SIGPIPE is not ignored instead
 of not blocked
Message-ID: <20220314221428.M538566@dcvr>
References: <20220227111714.GA13350@dcvr>
 <20220311104233.2408081-1-julm+public-inbox@sourcephile.fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20220311104233.2408081-1-julm+public-inbox@sourcephile.fr>
List-Id: <meta.public-inbox.org>

Julien Moutinho <julm+public-inbox@sourcephile.fr> wrote:
> Ignoring a signal is different than blocking a signal.

Thanks, pushed as commit f1e4e14793d155ea7d6ed7a6858b668e97c7e5d8

I wasn't sure why this patch was necessary at first.  Thus I
took take a closer look at systemd behavior to confirm, and
updated the message:

    Ignoring a signal is different than blocking a signal, and the
    "IgnoreSIGPIPE" option of systemd ignores.

    [ew: note systemd behavior]

    Acked-by: Eric Wong <e@80x24.org>

I (and any other project maintainer) would appreciate more
complete explanations in the future as to why a patch is needed.
Thanks again.