Bug#810018: Bug #810018: Consider shipping pidof with procps

[Craig Small]

On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 06:09, Mark Hindley <mark at hindley.org.uk> wrote:

> IIUC, the proposal[1] was to create a new Essential procps-base just
> containing
> pidof. Otherwise bin:procps would have to become Essential itself. Its
> installed
> size is about 20 times larger than sysvinit-util and that wouldn't
> contribute to
> shrinking the Essential set.
>
> I think this approach would also require a debian-devel email announcing
> the
> addition to the Essential set and I suppose the new src:procps will need a
> trip
> through NEW.
>
Good catch, I'll write something up on this as it changes a lot. There are
probably two questions
1) Does pidof need to be in an Essential package? While a lot of packages
do have pidof in them a lot (but not all) of those are in init scripts.
2) Does pidof need its own package then

 - Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20231114/c22f867d/attachment.htm>