Re: killall again

[Ian Darwin <ian@darwinsys.com>]

The zap that K&R published does not support -s signum or -y (yes mode).
The zap that is in the OpenBSD ports tree supports both.
The zap that is in my personal CVS further supports -s signame.
I will be updating this port shortly.

Is there a consensus? Since this port does all the things that people
seem to want, should I make "killall" be an alias for zap? Would it
make sense to rename the port, since killall seems to be a better-known
name than zap?

On Wed, Feb 09, 2000 at 08:44:24PM +0100, James WorK wrote:
> > This is already in the ports tree, under the name "zap", which Kernighan
> > & Pike gave it in 1984. Maybe I should modify the port to install
> > it with an alias of killall.  The version in there now, I believe,
> > does support killall -HUP (I think it's  -sHUP, having chosen
> > compatibility with standards over compatibility with the kill command).
> 
> For what I know, zap doesn't support signal choice nor the ability 
> to kill ALL the processes that match the argument at once (then 
> not suitable for scripting).