Here's a job control conundrum for you.

[Ben Scott]

On 4/11/07, Steven W. Orr <steveo at syslang.net> wrote:
> My apologies. I confused more people than I intended.

  How much did you intend for us to be confused?  Many of us are
pretty confused already, so you might be able to just skip the whole
thing... ;-)

> If I say
> killall -9 alpine
> then it dies. No problem. If I say
> kill -1 %1
> it dies also. The question I have is why
> killall -1 alpine
> does NOT work.

 Hmmm.  That *is* odd.  Does

	killall --signal HUP --verbose alpine

vs

	killall --signal KILL --verbose alpine

shed any light on the question?

> Obviously, since the killall does work with SIGKILL then
> killall is succeeding at delivering the signal.  The HUP
> therefore must also be successfully getting delivered
> by killall, but the process (alpine) is not handling the
> signal in the same way.

  I'm always very wary of words like "obviously" and "must" when
dealing with anything that's not working, especially when the word
"odd" is also involved....

> AFAIK, there's not supposed to be any difference in semantics dependant on
> whether the sender of the signal is in the same process group.

  Well, I don't really grok how process groups work, but try this:

	killall --signal HUP --process-group --verbose alpine

-- Ben