Failed cleanup

[Lawrence Velázquez]

On Jan 10, 2015, at 4:50 PM, René J.V. Bertin <rjvbertin at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't see what's confusing when a process that most users don't know (nor care) about keeps running. All they notice is that the port command terminates a bit earlier than before.

Do you expect a command-line foreground job to spawn background jobs that continue after the foreground job has finished? I sure don't. And such behavior would give a false impression that port(1) is finished, when it actually is not.

vq