Hello Craig.
On Thu, Jan 07, 2016 at 09:17:41AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
[...]
> What other packages will procps-base depend on?
> libc6 and libprocps5. libprocps would be newly pulled in.
[...]
I was thinking that maybe it might be a good idea to possibly avoid this
dependency. That would
Hello Craig Small.
Thanks for taking this on and drafting a proposal... I'll throw
in some of my own ideas below in case they're helpful so feel
free to leave out or reword things as you see fit.
Fwiw, in case you want to avoid any potential people out there
who might think you're just beating a
Hello Craig Small.
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:54:58AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:27:51PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> > The sysvinit-utils package has gone through a heavy diet and now
> > ships alot less tools (in favour of shipping them from other maintained
>
On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 01:32:24PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 06, 2016 at 07:54:58AM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> > Upstream is actually maintained (by myself and a few others).
> I'm aware (but wasn't aware that you had much help from others). :)
Mainly me and Jim for top. Jim
Package: procps
Version: 2:3.3.11-3
Severity: wishlist
Tags: patch
Dear Maintainer,
I've seen that you're in the past considered and discussed shipping
the procps version of pidof at
https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2013/12/msg00145.html
I'm filing this bug because I think the previous
On Tue, Jan 05, 2016 at 05:27:51PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> The sysvinit-utils package has gone through a heavy diet and now
> ships alot less tools (in favour of shipping them from other maintained
> upstreams, notably util-linux).
I can re-visit making a procps-base with pidof enabled
6 matches
Mail list logo
