On Fri, 24 May 2024 01:24:39 +0100 Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > 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!
Hello again, It's almost a year since the last ping, and more than 9 years since this bug was originally opened. Is there any blockers left for sorting this out or is it good to go? Thanks!
