Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2024-05-23 Thread Luca Boccassi
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-20 Thread Marco d'Itri
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-19 Thread Craig Small
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-15 Thread Guillem Jover
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-14 Thread Luca Boccassi
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-14 Thread Helmut Grohne
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-14 Thread Andreas Henriksson
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

Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base

2023-11-13 Thread Craig Small
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.