[BusyBox] RFC: giving respawn init actions a controlling tty?

[Torrey Hoffman]

On Mon, 2002-09-30 at 14:24, Erik Andersen wrote:
> Currently the busybox init code assumes that "respawn" init
> actions are non-interactive, and therefore should not get a
> controlling tty.  This works fine when people use respawn to

Arrrgh!  the answer to the question I've been fighting with for 
the last 2 hours...

Yes, please, give respawn'ed processes a controlling tty.  I've
been using busybox for a while now and often use respawn'ed /bin/sh
entries in my inittab while debugging.  

Similarly, regarding your other email (inittab entries are now run in
order, not reverse like they used to)...  another mystery solved, now my
shutdown - reboot sequence works again!

Busybox is great, but...  if little details like this were kept
up-to-date in the documentation it would be better!  

May I suggest something at the top of the documentation page that
discusses common gotcha's like this for people who are upgrading from
older versions?  

Torrey Hoffman