Re: Alternate termination sequence option --term-seq

[Ole Tange]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Martin d'Anjou
<martin.danjou14@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 15-04-23 05:56 PM, Ole Tange wrote:
>
> > Let us say you do not know that 9 = KILL (it took me several UNIX
> > years before I learned that), but you want to send kill -9.
> >
> > How should that be expressed in --termseq?
>
> Good question. I'd be surprised if a user attempted to use --term-seq
> without looking it up. So the --term-seq documentation (all of it, tutorial
> included) should be clear that it uses signal names, not numerical values.
> The documentation should point out the mapping between signal names and
> their numerical value at least for a few common signals (INT=2, TERM=15,
> KILL=9), then refer the user to their OS (unix: kill -l, trap -l, Windows:
> ?).

Sounds fair.

>> Do I want to send the signal to the process group or just the process
>
> To me it makes sense to first terminate the parent process and let it
> terminate its own children, as it is a valid way of writing programs (see
> http://mywiki.wooledge.org/SignalTrap).
>
> If processes remain after the first pass, reapply the termination sequence
> to the process group.

This you have to elaborate. Explain how this --termseq is executed
(with special emphasis on process groups):

--termseq HUP,2,TERM,10,TERM,20,INT,30,KILL


/Ole