Bug#551883: RFA: libdaemon -- lightweight C library for daemons - development files
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
I request an adopter for the libdaemon package. I was maintaining this
package because it was a dependency for ifplugd (I RFA-ed that a little while
ago). I can sponsor uploads of updated libdaemon packages.
The package description is:
libdaemon is a leightweight C library which eases the writing of UNIX daemons.
It consists of the following parts:
.
* Wrapper around fork() for correct daemonization of a process
* Wrapper around syslog() for simple log output to syslog or STDERR
* An API for writing PID files
* An API for serializing signals into a pipe for use with select() or poll()
* An API for running subprocesses with STDOUT and STDERR redirected to syslog
.
Routines like these are included in most of the daemon software available. It
is not simple to get these done right and code duplication is not acceptable.
.
This package includes the header files and the static version of the library
and documentation.
libdaemon is installed on a very large number of systems because of avahi.
Updates to the software are few and far between and there are no open bugs in
the Debian BTS. Upstream released 0.14 last week and the package needs to be
updated for that.
I am also Cc:ing the following dependent maintainers in case they would be
interested in maintanance of the package.
Utopia Maintenance Team <pkg-utopia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Philipp Huebner <debalance@debian.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJK3wfMAAoJENbfLHnbvsrcRq8IAKdKY1UqOCfLXQFGhw1zTLXs
+TH0GSkjN9MKYT/I4rBC8sAcNQl/R03hJkHEqaVv09segdXsCAyx5WvNzDK0FIMT
TvvrChWASg4vgW6ZuRY1SeIO4aRLZhcBEVGpHJrHAukU5zYBg1eOx2q4lNpEDfXF
rm0fJ0/zCuWRESnKdS+OgEgV7eceHCg4TtCtKLKZgXQub2vqr9GaJmJDX7AkLcxZ
b+n/h7drEdxUU3iMueOup6mYuKL+Nz+4hXElrJSuhCUV7/lNABnlffFSYWwor3qE
mbrUOWHatFW2nG5X/isngxqV6ECwsoMKrk94MF8DzGwNiUIgLmbZqtISFXW2Blk=
=7MUy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: