On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:47:07PM +1100, Craig Small wrote: > 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. Good to hear. Thanks for your diligence in following this up, Craig! -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
