RE: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?

["Julian Reschke" <reschke@medicaldataservice.de>]

> From: owner-mint@fishpool.com [mailto:owner-mint@fishpool.com]On Behalf
> Of Guido Flohr
> Sent: Monday, November 29, 1999 1:27 AM
> To: MiNT mailing list
> Subject: Re: [MiNT] What's in, what's out?
> ...
> > > SIGPWR is neither a weird idea nor a misunderstanding.  It is
> a System V
> > > feature and its existance aids in porting power management software to
> > > MiNT.
> >
> > Yes, how can you say it's important enough to be added as the
> last available
> > signal, if you really can't tell us where and how it is used?
>
> If there will really be another signal that would be desirable we can
> still redefine SIGPWR to SIGWHATEVER, unless SIGPWR is already widely
> used.  But if SIGPWR is used by then, there was obviously a need for it.

Am I the only one who's got a problem with that concept? It sounds like: "I
believe somebody needs this feature -- let's add it. If we need that signal
for something else, we will just change it or we will be stuck because it's
already in use..."


> I never said that I wanted to port the power daemon to MiNT.  But if
> somebody ever wants to do that (and power management is important for some
> users) then init has to be aware of it.  And I do init.

Then why don't you just document how the MiNT version of init can be made
aware of a power failure through a signal other than SIGPWR???