On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 10:47:07PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:10:52AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > upstream what they are going to do? If they are going to keep pidof
> > then the change is not required. If the projects plans is to
> Which I did.
> For the moment the
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:10:52AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> upstream what they are going to do? If they are going to keep pidof
> then the change is not required. If the projects plans is to
Which I did.
For the moment they have no plans moving pidof though they don't seem
terribly fussed eit
On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 11:54 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 07:07:54PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 16:06 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:22:27 -0800, Steve Langasek
> > > wrote:
> > > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +,
On Sun, Dec 15, 2013 at 07:07:54PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 16:06 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:22:27 -0800, Steve Langasek
> > wrote:
> > >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > >> Steve Langasek dixit:
> > >> >(For v
On Sun, 2013-12-15 at 16:06 +0100, Marc Haber wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:22:27 -0800, Steve Langasek
> wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> >> Steve Langasek dixit:
> >
> >> >(For values of "permanently" that include "we now have two implementations
> >
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 13:22:27 -0800, Steve Langasek
wrote:
>On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>> Steve Langasek dixit:
>
>> >(For values of "permanently" that include "we now have two implementations
>> >of sh in Essential, because no one has done the work to let us g
On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 09:02:21AM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Steve Langasek dixit:
> >(For values of "permanently" that include "we now have two implementations
> >of sh in Essential, because no one has done the work to let us get rid of
> >bash".)
> Maybe because the offered alternative su
Steve Langasek dixit:
>(For values of "permanently" that include "we now have two implementations
>of sh in Essential, because no one has done the work to let us get rid of
>bash".)
Maybe because the offered alternative sucks so much.
I’d happily split mksh into mksh and mksh-static, make
the la
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:03:09PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:18:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [...]
> > AIUI, you've also proposed including the following list of binaries in
> > procps-base:
> > > procps-base: pidof, ps, sysctl, pgrep, pkill
> > Currently, t
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:18:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
> [sending this to both pkg-sysvinit-devel and debian-devel, instead of having
> two separate threads.]
Good idea.
It looks like you're talking here not about the sysvinit maintainers, but
> the *Red Hat* sysvinit maintainers. Perha
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 10:03:09PM +, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Discussed here:
>
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/185723/focus=185725
That's the "leaving" side, the "arriving" side is.
http://www.freelists.org/post/procps/Adopting-pidof-from-sysvinittools
Not sure wha
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 12:18:00PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
[...]
> AIUI, you've also proposed including the following list of binaries in
> procps-base:
>
> > procps-base: pidof, ps, sysctl, pgrep, pkill
>
> Currently, the *only* one of these which is used as part of the essential
> set is
[sending this to both pkg-sysvinit-devel and debian-devel, instead of having
two separate threads.]
On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 01:49:37PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:56:57PM +, Roger Leigh wrote:
> > That sounds fine, I think. So on the sysvinit-utils side, we simply
>
13 matches
Mail list logo
