Bug#858837: Bug#888743: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base
❦ 24 mars 2019 14:40 +01, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud : >> Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole pattern >> is broken, it seems to be a low-effort solution. > > Vincent: what scenario did you have in mind? For the first part, any daemon chrooting (like HAProxy, lldpd). For the second part, it's just killing by name is fragile. Supervisors or PID files should be used instead. start-stop-daemon makes it easy to get a PID file for a program not able to provide one. -- Make it right before you make it faster. - The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Bug#858837: Bug#888743: Debian vs Linux namespaces, NMU lsb-base
Le dimanche, 24 mars 2019, 09.42:12 h CET Geert Stappers a écrit : > What would be the harm to the Buster release > if lsb-base got NMU > with > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?att=1;bug=888743;filename=ini > t-functions.diff;msg=37 ? I have now uploaded src:lsb to experimental with Harald's patch. I'm not comfortable yet to target buster, I must say, nor do I really have time to test this extensively. Le dimanche, 24 mars 2019, 10.16:25 h CET Vincent Bernat a écrit : > Wouldn't it break chrooted processes? But mostly, as the whole pattern > is broken, it seems to be a low-effort solution. Vincent: what scenario did you have in mind? Cheers, OdyX signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
