Bug#810018: procps: Please (re)consider shipping procps pidof

[Luca Boccassi]

On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 12:33, Craig Small <csmall at debian.org> wrote:
>
> I prefer this way myself. Also if people really want sysvinit pidof its still there; e.g if procps pidof breaks some obscure thing horribly, they're one update-alternative away from health.

Please don't. update-alternatives is an old, crufty and problematic
system, that wreaks havoc any time you want to have a self-contained
immutable vendor (/usr/) tree, given it _requires_ indirections
through a writable /etc/ tree. It has no place as a solution to new
problems.
If the sysvutils maintainers want to keep their implementation around
as pidof.sysvinit they can do that, and then have local aliases in
their bash profiles or so.