Bruce Dubbs wrote: > Dan Nicholson wrote: > > >> Fixing pidofproc to actually do the right thing w.r.t pid files. >> Dennis Perkins actually put that part together. The other change he >> does there is make the pid list local and echo it back. This is >> slightly different and possibly not backwards compatible since the >> current behavior has the other *proc() functions just using the global >> pidlist variable created in pidofproc. >> >> I prefer Dennis' way and can fix the functions to catch the result in >> it's own variable, but it could break existing scripts which call >> pidofproc directly. In most cases, though, pidofproc is being called >> indirectly through loadproc or statusproc. >> > > I did a grep of the bootscripts in both BLFS and LFS and the only files > that mention pidofproc are: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/LFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -rl pidofproc *|grep -v svn > ChangeLog > contrib/lsb/lib/init-functions > contrib/lsb-v3/lsb/init-functions > contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/lfs-functions > contrib/lsb-v3/init.d/template > lfs/init.d/functions > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ grep -r pidofproc *|grep -v svn > [EMAIL PROTECTED]/BLFS/trunk/bootscripts]$ > > So if these files are all made consistent, there shouldn't be any problem. > > As far as user's custom scripts go, I'd think a prudent user would check > them all when upgrading to a new version of LFS. > > -- Bruce > Well, the contrib/ versions shouldn't even be considered. They provide their own pidofproc() anyway, which already has this change because the spec says so. So the patch is a go already as far as anything within the LFS and BLFS. Another consideration is whether C&H are still using the same/similar functions file and scripts.
-- DJ Lucas -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
