Re: [Tracker] Showing trackerd's status in ps and top output

[Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:13 -0800, Jeff Schroeder wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> > 2008/1/3, Jeff Schroeder <jeffschroed gmail com>:
> > > On Jan 2, 2008 7:30 PM, Michael Biebl <mbiebl gmail com> wrote:
> > > > 2008/1/3, Jeff Schroeder <jeffschroed gmail com>:
> > > > > A few days ago while staring at ps and tracker was grinding my hard
> > > > > drive, it occurred to me, "Wouldn't it be nice if trackerd showed its
> > > > > status in ps / top?".
> > > > [..]
> > > >
> > > > Are such hacks really necessary? I mean, you can easily query
> > > > trackerd's status via tracker-status and also the D-Bus interface.
> > > Well on systems that support it via prctl or setproctitle, I don't see how
> > > it is a hack? It is *really* nice to look at top and see: trackerd (Indexing).
> > > It isn't like I'm saying we should switch tracker to lucene and I'm even
> > > offering to do the coding. If you are dead set against it please say so
> > > again. I'd rather work on a project that accepts small contributions.
> >
> > Sorry, I didn't want to discourage you, on the contrary. Helping hands
> > are always welcome!
> > I was just wondering about the usefulness of this patch, now that we
> > have something like tracker-applet.
> > Let's wait what jamie has to say. In the end he decides if this patch
> > will be accepted or not.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Michael
> Alright, we'll wait until Jaime says something. tracker-applet is nice,
> but not something I'll put on my panel when killall -SIGSTOP trackerd does
> the same thing functionality wise :)
>
> In the spirit of opensource, I had an itch and decided to scratch it. If
> it would be useful to more people then great. Also, I could modify it to
> only use setproctitle(3) or prctl(2) in places they are available.
>
> ---
> Jeff Schroeder

There is probably more useful things to do where your time would be most
appreciated to be honest


However if the patch was really small and negligible and protected by
system specific ifdef then I might allow it but Im not sure thats the
case here?

jamie