Bug#954306: sysvinit-utils: consider lowering the Priority of sysvinit-utils to important or even optional

Andreas Henriksson andreas at fatal.se
Thu Mar 19 22:07:37 GMT 2020

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote:
> Note that (some of the) bug reports that should possibly be marked as
> blockers for this has been filed, see:
> https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851747#126
> pidof should be moved to procps package (which is Priority: important).
> This is the only widely used tool which probably deserves to stay in the
> 'important' set.
> Someone might have to figure out if entangling the pidof transition with
> the Priority lowering is beneficial or if it's better to keep these
> issues separate.

Please note that sysvinit-utils doesn't qualify in the Priority required
set as defined by policy[1] and previously demonstrated[2].

The previously mentioned potential blockers for this are as I see it
mainly for "theoretical correctness", even if pidof stays in
sysvinit-utils package. So someone might have to make the call on which
theoreticall correctness is more impontant.

While ofcourse it would be ultimate if someone volunteered to fix every
theoretical issue, I think people likely have better things to spend
their time on and thus someone will have to decide which is worse:
- sysvinit-utils not being lowered to Priority: important and thus
  technically violating Policy.
- a few packages missing dependencies (or better solution).

Any "normal" installation will have all Priority: important packages
installed anyway (and those with special-case debootstraps likely
can be expected to figure things out on their own).

I'd think lowering to Priority: optional (while still keeping pidof in
sysvinit-utils package) would be more "interesting" though, thus my
previous recommendation to move pidof to procps keeping it important
while moving the rest of sysvinit-utils package to Priority: optional.

My opinion is thus that moving to Priority: important should happen ASAP
(while moving to Priority: optional would need a bit more thought), but
others might disagree? Input welcome.

Andreas Henriksson

[1]: Chapter 2.5 Priorities - https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#priorities
[2]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851747#76

More information about the Debian-init-diversity mailing list