Control: retitle -1 pidofproc enforces the presence of pathname, thereby breaking wrong uses of it Control: severity -1 important Control: tag -1 +wontfix
Hi Klaus, as you might have seen, I have cloned this bug against exim4-base as the use of pidofproc there is incorrect. That's where it should be fixed IMHO, as the pidofproc syntax is documented that way, both in LSB and the lsb-base package documentation for ages. The pidofproc fix of #691422 only enforces the correct syntax. Le lundi, 19 novembre 2012 12.30:39, Klaus Ethgen a écrit : > > As discussed in #691422, pidofproc was never meant to be used with a > > different arguments order, > > I do not know about the intended use. I never dig into pidofproc before. > I just know that exim init script (and maybe other) is broken after > updating lsb-base. In fact, it was broken (and working by chance) before. > > so I think it's not an lsb-base responsibility if other init scripts > > wrongly using it now fail when it enforces a correct behaviour. > > That might be. But shouldn't it be checked before make an incompatible > change and notifying the relevant maintainers? For what is worth, I checked through the Debian-provided initscripts to see if the arguments of pidofproc were reversed in some: that was not the case. I didn't think that some scripts would be using pidofproc wrongly. So, for this bug, I'm downgrading it to important and tagging it wontfix, so that other occurences of the exim4-base bug can be set as blocking it. Cheers, OdyX -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
