Your message dated Mon, 25 May 2026 18:15:17 -0400
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Findings regarding pidof usage in podman
has caused the Debian Bug report #1136557,
regarding podman uses pidof but does not depend on procps
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)


-- 
1136557: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=1136557
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Source: podman
Version: 5.8.2+ds1-1
Usertags: pidof-without-procps

Dear maintainer(s) of podman,

it appears that podman uses `pidof` in its testsuite, or that
at least one of its binary packages uses `pidof` at runtime.
Historically, `pidof` was provided by the Essential package
`sysvinit-tools`, making an explicit dependency unnecessary. However
`pidof` will soon be moved to `procps` and will no longer be part of
the Essential set.

Please add an explicit dependency on `procps`:

* via the `Depends:` field of all binary packages of podman
  that use `pidof` at runtime;
* via the `Build-Depends:` field of podman, if `pidof` is
  used in tests run at build-time;
* via the `Depends:` field of `debian/control/tests`, if `pidof` is
  used in autopkgtests.

To prevent any disruption for users of podman, please add
this dependency now, before `pidof` is moved from `sysvinit-utils` to
`procps`. Alternatively, you could remove all uses of `pidof`.

It is believed that podman uses `pidof` due to the following
code snippets:

```
path: podman_5.7.0+ds2-3/test/apiv2/python/rest_api/test_v2_0_0_container.py
        out = r.json()
        self.assertIsNotNone(out["State"].get("Health"))
        self.assertListEqual(["CMD", "pidof", "top"], 
out["Config"]["Healthcheck"]["Test"])
        self.assertEqual(5000000000, out["Config"]["Healthcheck"]["Interval"])
        self.assertEqual(2000000000, out["Config"]["Healthcheck"]["Timeout"])


path: podman_5.7.0+ds2-3/test/apiv2/python/rest_api/test_v2_0_0_container.py
        out = r.json()
        hc = out["Config"]["Healthcheck"]["Test"]
        self.assertListEqual(["CMD", "pidof", "top"], hc)
        r = requests.post(self.podman_url + 
f"/v1.40/containers/{container_id}/start")


path: podman_5.7.0+ds2-3/test/apiv2/python/rest_api/test_v2_0_0_container.py
                "Image": "alpine:latest",
                "Healthcheck": {
                    "Test": ["CMD", "pidof", "top"],
                    "Interval": 5000000000,
                    "Timeout": 2000000000,
```

Feel free to close this issue if this is a false positive (for example
if this code is in an unreachable code path).

Regards,

-- 
Gioele Barabucci

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
Version: 5.8.2+ds1-1

Hello,

Thank you for the report regarding the upcoming pidof transition. I have 
investigated the usage of "pidof" in the podman source tree and found 
the following:

1. The only occurrences of "pidof" are in the Python-based API test 
   suite: test/apiv2/python/rest_api/test_v2_0_0_container.py

2. In these tests, a container is **dynamically created** via a POST 
   request to the Podman API using the alpine:latest image. The 
   "pidof" command is defined as part of a Healthcheck configuration 
   sent in the JSON payload of that request.

3. Consequently, "pidof" is intended to run *inside* the Alpine 
   container namespace. In that context, it is provided by the 
   container's own BusyBox/tools, not the host's procps package.

4. These Python tests are currently not executed during the Debian 
   build process (dh_auto_test only runs Go tests) nor are they part of 
   any autopkgtest defined in debian/tests/control.

5. I found no evidence of "pidof" being used by the podman binary 
   itself or any of the systemd units/scripts shipped in the package.

As such, this is a false positive for the host environment, and no 
additional dependency on procps is required. I am therefore closing 
this bug.

Regards,
-rt

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to