On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 10:40:33 +0000 Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 10:13, Helmut Grohne <hel...@subdivi.de> 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 do not want to take on the > > non-essential part, I fear I see little alternatives to that procps-base > > proposal. > > Yeah, let's not make this task impossibly huge and lengthy, please. > Using the same implementation as every other distro has immediate > benefits for everybody, packagers and users. Rearranging the packaging > details and priorities and whatnot is pretty much an internal-only > detail - which doesn't mean it's not good or useful or worth doing, > just that I don't think it's worth blocking the first part for it, as > it can happen just as well later. The procps-base proposal looks good > to me.
Hello Craig, It's been six months since the last update on this bug - would it be possible to finally take this over the finishing line? Thanks! -- Kind regards, Luca Boccassi
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
