Re: [Nano-devel] RFC: should nano respond to a SIGCONT?

[Benno Schulenberg]

On Wed, May 24, 2017, at 11:07, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> I've just tried suspending nano with ^Z and then waking
> it up with a 'kill -SIGCONT <pid>' in another terminal.
> 
> When doing that, the contents of the current file are
> displayed again, the cursor has returned to its former
> place, but nano is not actually active: the shell still
> has control of the terminal -- which becomes obvious
> when you type <Up> a few times.

Fixed in git, with commits a969adf8 and 84ff9ebb.

(That first commit probably fixes crashes like this one:
https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/reports/1729046/ )

So now nano ignores any bare SIGCONT and just continues
sleeping, until the user wakes it up manually with 'fg'.

Benno

-- 
http://www.fastmail.com - Send your email first class