On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 10:41:34PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote: > I think it makes sense for fakeroot to wrap setpriority(), as a privileged > call. The attached patch does this. > > I'd be happy to upload an SRU for this if you like. Or, if you don't think > fakeroot should handle this, I'd appreciate you letting me know so we can > address this in upstart.
I think running testsuites under fakeroot will lead to heartbreak. Irrespective of that, I think it's okay to wrap setpriority but I wonder if in the spirit of fakeroot, it makes more sense to wrap both getpriority and setpriority and track those priorities similarly to ownership and permissions. On the other hand, perhaps it is a mistake to try to implement any semblance of process management. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
