Bug#826215: Bug#810018: procps pidof (was: Re: Processed: forcibly merging 851747 826215)

[Luca Boccassi]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 11:56, Craig Small <csmall at debian.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 01:01, Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>
> I had a look into this and it seems the only valid required user of pidof is /usr/lib/lsb/init-functions
> Some init scripts call this, but they should be sourcing init-functions (most do) and using pidofproc() (some do).
> My understanding is the init-functions file is required for sysv init scripts only.
>
> So:
>  * a sysv init system uses init scripts, which use init-functions, which needs pidof
>  * systemd init system uses unit files and doesn't need init-functions or pidof
>
> I'm not 100% sure of that second bullet point. I'd really like that confirmed.

The second point is correct

> Does sysvinit-utils need to be Essential at all? Is it just merely making sysvinit-core depend on sysvinit-utils (it does already)
> and then sysvinit-utils requires whatever package has pidof?
>
> Looking into it more and adjusting Helmut's suggested migration path[1]
>
> Is it a matter of:
> 1) sysvinit-core depends on sysvinit-utils (already does with a version)
> 2) sysvinit-utils has its Essential tag removed, its being pulled in by sysvinit-core
> 3) sysvinit-utils depends on and provides virtual package pidof
> 4) If there is anything that needs pidof but doesn't need sysvinit-utils it also depends on virtual package pidof
> 5) At some time sysvinit-utils drops the virtual package, doesn't install pidof, procps picks those up

The virtual package could also just be skipped, and a dependency utils
-> procps simply added, should provide the same results with fewer
steps in between?