Bug#1024221: Bug#1022573: transition: procps

From	Craig Small <csmall@debian.org>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.bugs.rc
Subject	Bug#1024221: Bug#1022573: transition: procps
Date	2022-12-22 11:30 +0100
Message-ID	<FFqZP-cnNV-3@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	(5 earlier) <Fk1D3-gnjK-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <FFgQN-chuo-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <FFpAJ-cmMG-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <FskIx-44mn-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <FFpAJ-cmMG-1@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] - view raw

On Thu, 22 Dec 2022 at 19:50, Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> wrote:

> That's (in general) sub-optimal for the release team. We try hard to
> avoid entangling transitions and therefor we try to finish transitions
> sooner rather than later. My preference would be that you NMU (minimal
> changes) now; the maintainer can always update the pending changes after
> the migration happened.
>
Sure thing Paul; I have uploaded an NMU which is only the patch that gets
it to link to libproc2.

I know upstream made some slight changes, with the patch I sent them but it
was for things like
using exit instead of return for some functions when there was a failure,
but most of them used both anyway so it seemed
pretty arbitrary.  If /proc is unmounted or malloc fails, you're in a world
of hurt anyway.

Timo, if you need help getting the next version linked to libproc2 I've
done both versions so I can help.

 - Craig

Back to linux.debian.bugs.rc | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Bug#1024221: Bug#1022573: transition: procps Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 10:00 +0100
  Bug#1024221: Bug#1022573: transition: procps Craig Small <csmall@debian.org> - 2022-12-22 11:30 +0100

csiph-web