[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: pidof changing from sysvinit-devel to procps

Since we are talking about pidof, I'd like to note that pgrep is more
portable ;-)

2013/8/9, Craig Small <csmall@debian.org>:
> Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
> discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
> home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be in
> procps in the dark ages). This means shortly that pidof will disappear
> from sysvinit-tools and appear in procps.
> If your package uses pidof, we need to talk about it NOW so that this
> change doesn't put you in the lurch. I believe merely depending on procps
> will do what is needed, with the right version.
> If your package uses, or you have a strong case for, non-LSB pidof flags
> then it is essential you speak up. The command line options that may be
> going are -c -n -m  This is not strictly a Debian thing so you can
> always speak up about the options at [1].
> For most people (hopefully) this change should be invisible; but for the
> minority that it's important, now is the time.
>  - Craig
> [1] http://www.freelists.org/archive/procps
> --
> Craig Small VK2XLZ   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-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
> listmaster@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 20130809111050.GA6556@enc.com.au">http://lists.debian.org/20130809111050.GA6556@enc.com.au

Reply to: