On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 11:42:13AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> You must use versioned Replaces, and *not* versioned Breaks, for the case of
> moving files between Essential packages. Since (as others have mentioned)
> the version of sysvinit-utils that drops pidof needs to add a Pre-Dep ond
> p
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:56:57PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next
> release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly.
> procps-base will contain the new pidof and will be
> Essential: yes
> Breaks: sysvinit-ut
Hello,
2013-12-09 03:55, Ben Hutchings:
> On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 13:56 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next
> > release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly.
> >
> > procps-base will contain the new pidof and will
On Mon, 2013-12-09 at 13:56 +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next
> release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly.
>
> procps-base will contain the new pidof and will be
> Essential: yes
> Breaks: sysvinit-utils <
As pidof is moving from sysvinit-utils to procps-base in the next
release, I want to check I've got the way dpkg handles flags correctly.
procps-base will contain the new pidof and will be
Essential: yes
Breaks: sysvinit-utils << 2.88dsf-43
Now, if there is a new Essential package, is that au
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 10:01:33AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> my first cut of it would be:
> procps-base: pidof, ps, sysctl, pgrep, pkill
> procps: pwdx, vmstat, tload, free, pmap, skill, slabtop, top, uptime,
> watch, w, snice
>
> procps-base is Essential and depends on libc6, libncurses
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 11:28:47AM +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:39:20PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > I also wonder whether it would not be more sensible to split procps into
> > essential and non-essential binary packages. Aside from pidof, I bet
> > there are lots of
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:39:20PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> I don't think this is a sensible thing to ask. There may be lots of
> scripts using pidof that their maintainers don't know about. I suggest
> using codesearch.debian.net to find the packages.
For the three flags that might go, the
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 03:14:14PM +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote:
>And is there a strong reason why we don't move whole procps into
>essential?A
It used to be there and then it was decided it wasn't essential.
- Craig
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 04:46:26PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> Since we are talking about pidof, I'd like to note that pgrep is more
> portable ;-)
They'll actually share some of the same codebase after this change.
pidof is bascially a cut-down pgrep.
- Craig
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
> > discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
> > home for pidof so it "fits" with
Since we are talking about pidof, I'd like to note that pgrep is more
portable ;-)
2013/8/9, Craig Small :
> Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
> discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
> home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar
On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 14:21 +0200, Bastien ROUCARIES wrote:
>
> Le 9 août 2013 13:39, "Ben Hutchings" a écrit :
> >
> > On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have
> been in
> > > discussion with the sysvinit-tools ups
Le 9 août 2013 13:39, "Ben Hutchings" a écrit :
>
> On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
> > discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
> > home for pidof so it "fits" with simi
On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote:
> Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
> discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
> home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be in
> procps in the dark ages).
Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in
discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new
home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be in
procps in the dark ages). This means shortly that pidof will disappear
from sysvinit-to
16 matches
Mail list logo
