On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:40:03PM +0100, Andreas Henriksson wrote: [...] > Note that (some of the) bug reports that should possibly be marked as > blockers for this has been filed, see: > https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851747#126 [...] > pidof should be moved to procps package (which is Priority: important). > This is the only widely used tool which probably deserves to stay in the > 'important' set. [...] > Someone might have to figure out if entangling the pidof transition with > the Priority lowering is beneficial or if it's better to keep these > issues separate.
Please note that sysvinit-utils doesn't qualify in the Priority required set as defined by policy[1] and previously demonstrated[2]. The previously mentioned potential blockers for this are as I see it mainly for "theoretical correctness", even if pidof stays in sysvinit-utils package. So someone might have to make the call on which theoreticall correctness is more impontant. While ofcourse it would be ultimate if someone volunteered to fix every theoretical issue, I think people likely have better things to spend their time on and thus someone will have to decide which is worse: - sysvinit-utils not being lowered to Priority: important and thus technically violating Policy. vs - a few packages missing dependencies (or better solution). Any "normal" installation will have all Priority: important packages installed anyway (and those with special-case debootstraps likely can be expected to figure things out on their own). I'd think lowering to Priority: optional (while still keeping pidof in sysvinit-utils package) would be more "interesting" though, thus my previous recommendation to move pidof to procps keeping it important while moving the rest of sysvinit-utils package to Priority: optional. My opinion is thus that moving to Priority: important should happen ASAP (while moving to Priority: optional would need a bit more thought), but others might disagree? Input welcome. Regards, Andreas Henriksson [1]: Chapter 2.5 Priorities - https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-archive.html#priorities [2]: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=851747#76
