David S. Goldberg wrote:
>
> The problem for me was mostly that I use ;s in a couple of commands.
> exec causes the second command to get lost. Obviously I could run sh
> -c "command1 ; command2", and frankly that would have been OK by me,
> though it would have been nice if I'd been warned someplace other than
> the ChangeLog (I don't even recall any discussion about it before the
> 2.0.42 release). A better solution, IMO, would be to have two
> Exec's, one that uses the shell, one that directly forks and exec's
> the given command.
>
I'm somewhat late into this thread, but I think that the two primitives
should be:
Shell makes a subshell
Exec forks a subshell with an implicit 'exec', or even just fork
a process with no shell at all. The fvwm command should
mirror the behavior of the shell command by that name,
because that's what people will expect it to do.
3 is overkill, but one is not enough.
Stig
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL:http://www.hpc.uh.edu/fvwm/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_hpc.uh.edu.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_hpc.uh.edu.
Received on Thu Apr 17 1997 - 01:42:54 BST