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
