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

[Luca Boccassi]

On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 21:07, Craig Small <csmall at debian.org> wrote:
>
> 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

I think it's easier and less work for everyone involved to keep it
essential for now, and then eventually be scaled back and merged back
into the existing package later.