Re: Final (?) info on signals/crashes when suspending "mutt" function

["Bart Schaefer" <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Jun 27,  3:21pm, Peter Stephenson wrote:
} Subject: Re: Final (?) info on signals/crashes when suspending "mutt" func
}
} "Bart Schaefer" wrote:
} > The failure in case (1) is far less catastrophic than case (2), so I think
} > the right solution is to back off to the behavior from patch 6707
} 
} Somebody who's been looking at this will have to produce counter-patches
} for pws-24, I'm not going to attempt this myself on a wing and a prayer.

I spent several hours last night attempting it in 3.0.6 and have not been
having much luck.  I got it back to the point where suspending the mutt
function doesn't kill the parent, thing, but then it appears (from strace)
that bin_fg() is calling attachtty() with the parent shell's process ID
rather than that of the stopped job, which would mean that someplace that
I haven't found yet, the `gleader' of the job entry is set incorrectly.
(The effect of this is that mutt appears to come into the foreground, but
then gets a SIGTTIN and stops again as soon as it tries to read input.)

I fear I'm going to have to punt this to Sven.  I had really hoped to put
out a test 3.0.6 this weekend, but now it may have to wait a couple weeks.

-- 
Bart Schaefer                                 Brass Lantern Enterprises
http://www.well.com/user/barts              http://www.brasslantern.com