Hi!
On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 17:29:01 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> What:
> Create a new package procps-base. This uses the existing procps source
> package and just enable building of pidof. procps-base will be an Essential
> package and only contain pidof.
>
> Why:
> This would bring the pidof varia
On 14/11/23 11:11, Helmut Grohne wrote:
I welcome the effort in general. Like Andreas, I question whether having
pidof remain essential is useful. A quick codesearch
https://codesearch.debian.net/search?q=%5Cbpidof%5Cb&literal=0 suggests
that we have less than 500 source packages that even mentio
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 10:13, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> So in essence, you asked for changing the pidof implementation and
> Andreas and me try to turn this into a much bigger quest of making it
> non-essential. While these matters are related, they can be done
> independently in principle and if you
Hi Craig,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:29:01PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> For quite some time (since 2006!) there has been a discussion at[1] about
> changing from the sysvinit-utils version of pidof to the procps one. A
> quick scan of the various distributions shows that only Debian an
Hi,
On 11/14/23 18:42, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
Instead I think pidof can just be part of procps package. The
sysvinit-utils package will then pull in procps via a dependency (once
sysvinit-utils stops being Essential), which would smooth the transition
for all sysvinit users until LSB pidofpr
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:29:01PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> For quite some time (since 2006!) there has been a discussion at[1] about
> changing from the sysvinit-utils version of pidof to the procps one. A
> quick scan of the various distributions shows that only Debian and U
6 matches
Mail list logo
