Re: Proposed stable update for procps
* Adam D. Barratt <firstname.lastname@example.org> [110803 19:50]:
> On Thu, 2011-07-28 at 15:24 +0200, Christian Hofstaedtler wrote:
> > The debdiff would fix both things, if this is not acceptable, I can
> > prepare another version only fixing #632749.
> I'd be happy with the fix for #632749, certainly. What's the practical
> impact of #635553? Particularly given that it is still open in
> unstable, I'm inclined to say we should skip it, at least for the
It's probably harmless, it will just be an extra stat() that will
always fail. If future kernel versions introduce this interface, it
might or might not become a problem.
cellphone +43 680 2348846