On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:10:52AM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > upstream what they are going to do? If they are going to keep pidof > then the change is not required. If the projects plans is to Which I did.
For the moment they have no plans moving pidof though they don't seem terribly fussed either way (that's my read of it anyhow). What I have done is used the --disable-pidof flag in procps configure step. This means procps does *not* have pidof and it can remain in sysvinit-tools for the time being. If the upstream decides to move it, we'll work out what to do then. - Craig -- Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20131216114707.ga31...@enc.com.au
