Bug#826215: procps pidof (was: Re: Processed: forcibly merging 851747 826215)

[Luca Boccassi]

On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:58:37 +1100 Craig Small <csmall at debian.org> wrote:
> Path B: We decide to use the procps pidof. Then there are two questions.
> 1) Should the procps pidof package be Essential?
> 2) Should the procps pidof package be separate to procps and libproc2?
>
> My preference is for 1) the answer is no. This package would only be needed
> because sysvinit-utils needs it, so a dependency should cover it.
> The "main" procps package would probably need a dependency/recommends on it
> just so pidof is there for users.

Sounds reasonable

> For 2) I have no real preference. Keeping pidof in main procps is easier
> for me, but it does mean anything that needs sysvinit-utils
> will pull in procps and its libraries. Most people would install procps
> anyway but there might be a subsection that use sysvinit
> and don't install procps; I have no idea what this number is. The breaking
> out of pidof from procps would be for this intersection of users.

Start without adding a new package which is operationally easier (no
new queue to clear) and see how it goes? It can always be added later,
if it turns out it's needed