On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:18:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [sending this to both pkg-sysvinit-devel and debian-devel, instead of having
> two separate threads.]
Good idea.

 It looks like you're talking here not about the sysvinit maintainers, but
> the *Red Hat* sysvinit maintainers.  Perhaps the rewrite of pidof is
> something that we want to pick up, but the rationale for including it in the
> procps package doesn't apply to Debian at all.
Right, can someone go and ask the sysvinit-utils or sysvinit-tools
upstream what they are going to do?  If they are going to keep pidof
then the change is not required.  If the projects plans is to
retire/move it, then we will need to move it too.
I'm not sure exactly who the exact upstream project it is.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small (@smallsees)   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/20131209221052.gf23...@enc.com.au

Reply via email to