init not processing SIGCHLD during reboot?

[Paul Smith]

On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 17:04 -0500, Rob Landley wrote:

> So you say that behavior required by SUSv3 isn't something you're willing to 
> rely on, yet BusyBox has been targeting susv3 for how many years now?  (The 
> austin group was when?)

I've been subscribed to this mailing list for about 27 hours now.  I
have no idea whether BusyBox targets SUSv3, much less how long it has
done so.  I'm perfectly happy to rely on it if that's the project's
standard.  Many free software projects take a much more lax position on
OS requirements.

> > I'm not sure what the portability requirements are for BusyBox
> 
> SUSv3.

Excellent!  That definitely makes things simpler.

Cheers!