Re: "gconfd-2: no process killed" messages

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2007-09-21 at 23:08 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>> "TK" == Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> TK> This looks like a good change.  Anyone object to me going ahead
> TK> and changing it?
> 
> No objection here; removing inconsistencies from ScriptletSnippets is
> always a good thing.  Using --quiet is probably the best choice if
> it's supported as far back as we need it to be.
> 

The kill is completely redundant nowadays, since we have:


--- GConf-2.18.0.1/gconf/gconftool.c.reload     2007-03-02
17:10:13.000000000 -0500
+++ GConf-2.18.0.1/gconf/gconftool.c    2007-03-13 02:21:29.000000000
-0400
@@ -3780,6 +3780,8 @@
       ++args;
     }

+  g_spawn_command_line_sync ("/usr/bin/killall -q -TERM "
GCONF_SERVERDIR "/" GCONFD, NULL, NULL, NULL, NULL); 
+
   retval |= do_sync (conf);
   return retval;
 }


--
Fedora-packaging mailing list
Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Big List of Linux Books]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux