On Wed, Dec 2, 2009 at 3:06 AM, Craig Small <csm...@enc.com.au> wrote:
> That's been done before, there were lots of complaints. When? What were the complaints? :) > They copied the FAQ from upstream, I saw nothing about it being a Debian > specific patched version. But Craig, aren't you the upstream maintainer of procps? > If the bulk of debian-devel said yes this is a good idea I'd regretfully > change it. Thank you for offering to do so. > Now the rm -rf / blah protection is quite neat and perhaps something > like it could be done. I'm not sure what the criteria would be. Good idea. I have researched your idea. From the first forty or so Google search results for [ "pkill -v" ], it looks like nobody in those search results uses "pkill -v some_process_name" except by accident. They only use -v purposefully when they use it with -u, as in "pkill -v -u root" or "pkill -v -u 0,1" or "pkill -v -u root,daemon,nobody,gdm". Maybe if you want to use -v without -u, you should need to pass the long option --invert-match instead of the short option -v. What do you think? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
