On Mon, 3 Mar 2025 at 23:28, Emilio Pozuelo Monfort
wrote:
> I don't think this is a change that should be done this close to the
> freeze.
> Please stage this change in experimental if you wish, but let's postpone
> it
> until forky.
>
> btw, the transition suggested by Helmut on [1] sounds reas
On 25/02/2025 10:35, Craig Small wrote:
Hi Debian Release Team,
I released probably the best way of knowing if "we have the time" or not is
to ask you.
So what is this change?
It is replacing the pidof in sysv-init-utils with the pidof in procps.
This will involve making a new Essential package
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 12:49:29 +0100 Chris Hofstaedtler
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:50:24PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > I've now got a git branch on salsa showing the required changes and
to see
> > how it went getting built.
> >
> > https://salsa.debian.org/debian/procps/-/tree/new-pidof
On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 10:50:24PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> I've now got a git branch on salsa showing the required changes and to see
> how it went getting built.
>
> https://salsa.debian.org/debian/procps/-/tree/new-pidof
Maybe you can put it into experimental. Advantages:
- it will pass NEW
I've now got a git branch on salsa showing the required changes and to see
how it went getting built.
https://salsa.debian.org/debian/procps/-/tree/new-pidof
- Craig
rwarded message -
From: Craig Small
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:24
Subject: Re: Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base
To: Luca Boccassi
Cc: <810...@bugs.debian.org>
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 21:07, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 09:26, Craig Small wrote:
&
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 21:07, Luca Boccassi wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 09:26, Craig Small wrote:
> - src:procps with a new procps-pidof binary package that
> breaks/replaces current sysvinit-utils and with prio: essential
> - drop pidof and prio:essential from sysvinit-utils and add depends
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 09:26, Craig Small wrote:
>
> Hi Luca,
> The issue is getting from where we are to where we want to be without
> breaking everything. In other words, it interim steps along the way.
>
> Admittedly I haven't thought *too* much about it, but pidof (either one)
> needs to b
Hi Luca,
The issue is getting from where we are to where we want to be without
breaking everything. In other words, it interim steps along the way.
Admittedly I haven't thought *too* much about it, but pidof (either one)
needs to be installed all the time, without dragging in all of procps.
Ther
On Fri, 24 May 2024 01:24:39 +0100 Luca Boccassi
wrote:
> 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
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
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
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 unnecess
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 varia
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 you
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 an
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 U
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.
18 matches
Mail list logo
