On Sat, 25 Sep 2010, Laurent Guignard wrote: > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010 15:54:15 +0200, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > > On Sat, 11 Sep 2010, Laurent Guignard wrote: > > > > > I took a week to work on the patch you submit but with my job i have > > > not finished to read and understand. > > > > Please, do not hesitate to ask, if there's more you need to know. > > I'll do my best to answer your questions. > > > > > So i will need more time to add your patch to package. > > ... > > Hello,
Laurent, > I read your comments in init.d file. The first thing i noticed on, is > the way i pick out the PID from the process name (/proc/$pid...). > My main reflexion is about the "better" (if there is one ;) ) to get the > twice sides of the process : name and pid. The main thing i would like > to do is to write a script as general as possible. > I think the way i wrote the script is too specific and not safe with > possible futur kernel evolutions (possible change in /proc ????) > Is pidof command more stable in time ??? 'pidof' from package 'sysvinit-utils' is one way to do it. 'pgrep' from package 'procps' may be another way. And I think you can rely on those packages adjusting to transitions from /proc to /sys. IIRC, /proc was declared obsolete recently. > I wrote here a part of my thinking and as you notice the problem in your > bug report, have you any idea about the better way to do what i would > like to do ? > I only need help about the way to solve the problem, not code because i > would not like to be influenced. I think i haven't enough visibility > about the futur (near and long) of Linux and Debian in this domain. I think I understand what you mean. > I hope you could bring me this visibility about or even a personal > thinking. It may be easier for me to comment on some code, if you can provide some. > Thank you by advance. Cheers, -- Cristian -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
