On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 12:33, Craig Small <[email protected]> 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.
