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

[Craig Small]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 22:04, Luca Boccassi <bluca at debian.org> wrote:

>
> The second point is correct
>
Excellent, so a systemd init host doesn't need pidof then

> 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?
>
That would work too and be less things going on.

sysvinit-utils/sysvinit-core maintainers, do you agree with this approach?
Do you need some dependent bugs opened, or is 826215 enough?

I'll wait a while for some replies. I think it needs to go to debian-devel.
Policy says it needs to go
there for new Essential packages, but I assume for removing Essential tags
it needs that too.

 - Craig
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/debian-init-diversity/attachments/20260113/a902ba58/attachment.htm>