Re: [MiNT] MiNT termination

[Konrad Kokoszkiewicz <draco@mi.com.pl>]

Hi,

> Well, I think that KGMD's init.prg is very limited, and should be
> replaced with a more sophisticated one. I'm thinking of runlevels and
> other nifty stuff. A port (if not already done by someone) could then of
> course use MiNT's Shutdown() function on receiving SIGHUP (reboot?) and
> SIGTERM (halt?)
> 
> I wouldn't opt for changing MiNT's exit behaviour, as it may be useful
> for some people.

Okay, but isn't it more consistent, when it is init.prg that kills own
children (gettys etc), then the system shuts down, instead of the
situation now, when the kernel just kills everyone and you can't be sure
if the processes terminated gracefully?

--
Konrad M.Kokoszkiewicz
|mail: draco@mi.com.pl                  | Atari Falcon030/TT030/65XE |
|http://www.orient.uw.edu.pl/~conradus/

** Ea natura multitudinis est,
** aut servit humiliter, aut superbe dominatur (Liv. XXIV,25)
*************************************************************
** U pospolstwa normalne jest, ze albo sluzy ono unizenie,
** albo bezczelnie sie panoszy.