%% Dan Espen <dane_at_mk.telcordia.com> writes:
>> Exec ssh-add < /dev/null;$HOME/bin/email-notify
de> The double exec is to get rid of the shell that launches and waits
de> for the the command to terminate. Since email-notify probably
de> hangs around, Exec exec is probably better, but I'm not too sure
de> that the shell I created with 'sh -c' isn't hanging around.
de> Probably another exec in the command will deal with it.
de> All in all, I like your suggested solution better.
de> I'll take simple over efficient every time.
If you can stand being a _little_ less simple to get a _little_ more
efficient, I think what you really want is this:
Exec ssh-add < /dev/null ; exec $HOME/bin/email-notify
This way (a) a shell is invoked, (b) the shell runs ssh-add, then (c)
the shell execs email-notify, and in the end you just have one
email-notify process running.
>> > Exec exec sh -c 'ssh-add < /dev/null;$HOME/bin/email-notify'
This doesn't save anything over the version at the top of this email, in
terms of # of processes.
Fvwm starts a shell, then that shell exec's a new shell, then the second
shell starts ssh-add, then the second shell starts email-notify.
So, at the end you still have a shell and email-notify running, same as
the simple method :).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <psmith_at_nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Wed Dec 03 2003 - 14:11:54 GMT