On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 10:40:33 + Luca Boccassi
wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 10:13, Helmut Grohne
wrote:
> > So in essence, you asked for changing the pidof implementation and
> > Andreas and me try to turn this into a much bigger quest of making
it
> > non-essential. While these matters are
On Nov 20, Craig Small wrote:
> Also why is killall5 not a candidate too?
Probably because it makes no sense outside of sysvinit, except that as
a footgun.
(Also, is it equivalent to pkill --inverse?)
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
On Wed, 15 Nov 2023 at 23:03, Guillem Jover wrote:
> I'm all in for shrinking the essential-set. If there is consensus to
> switch pidof implementations that also seems fine to me in the abstract.
> But this shuffling around of essential-ness and new tiny packages and
> stuff seems a bit unnecess
Hi!
On Tue, 2023-11-14 at 17:29:01 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> What:
> Create a new package procps-base. This uses the existing procps source
> package and just enable building of pidof. procps-base will be an Essential
> package and only contain pidof.
>
> Why:
> This would bring the pidof varia
On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 10:13, Helmut Grohne wrote:
> So in essence, you asked for changing the pidof implementation and
> Andreas and me try to turn this into a much bigger quest of making it
> non-essential. While these matters are related, they can be done
> independently in principle and if you
Hi Craig,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:29:01PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> For quite some time (since 2006!) there has been a discussion at[1] about
> changing from the sysvinit-utils version of pidof to the procps one. A
> quick scan of the various distributions shows that only Debian an
Hello,
On Tue, Nov 14, 2023 at 05:29:01PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Hello,
> For quite some time (since 2006!) there has been a discussion at[1] about
> changing from the sysvinit-utils version of pidof to the procps one. A
> quick scan of the various distributions shows that only Debian and U
Hello,
For quite some time (since 2006!) there has been a discussion at[1] about
changing from the sysvinit-utils version of pidof to the procps one. A
quick scan of the various distributions shows that only Debian and Ubuntu
(and I assume most other downstreams) use the sysvinit-utils version.
8 matches
Mail list logo