Since we are talking about pidof, I'd like to note that pgrep is more portable ;-)
2013/8/9, Craig Small <csm...@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-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmas...@lists.debian.org > Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130809111050.ga6...@enc.com.au > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8zS_Vr=Eore=AU2TU3vXuBNVbPptqzBH=1pwza1r2w...@mail.gmail.com