GNU bug report logs - #7388
24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs

Previous Next

Package: emacs;

Reported by: jidanni <at> jidanni.org

Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:51:02 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Tags: wontfix

Found in version 24.0.50

Done: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>

Bug is archived. No further changes may be made.

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 7388 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 7388 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to owner <at> debbugs.gnu.org, bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#7388; Package emacs. (Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to jidanni <at> jidanni.org:
New bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org. (Fri, 12 Nov 2010 20:51:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: jidanni <at> jidanni.org
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist;
	kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 02:57:10 +0800
"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.




Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#7388; Package emacs. (Mon, 14 Oct 2019 01:11:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #8 received at 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Cc: 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist; kill them and exit
 anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:10:14 +0200
jidanni <at> 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




Added tag(s) wontfix. Request was from Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Mon, 14 Oct 2019 01:11:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

bug closed, send any further explanations to 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org and jidanni <at> jidanni.org Request was from Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org> to control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Mon, 14 Oct 2019 01:11:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org:
bug#7388; Package emacs. (Mon, 14 Oct 2019 07:10:02 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz <at> gnu.org>
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
Cc: 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, jidanni <at> jidanni.org
Subject: Re: bug#7388: 24.0.50; "Active processes exist;
 kill them and exit anyway?" or let them live on, but exit emacs
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 10:09:18 +0300
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
> Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2019 03:10:14 +0200
> Cc: 7388 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
> 
> jidanni <at> 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.




bug archived. Request was from Debbugs Internal Request <help-debbugs <at> gnu.org> to internal_control <at> debbugs.gnu.org. (Mon, 11 Nov 2019 12:24:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

This bug report was last modified 4 years and 138 days ago.

Previous Next


GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.