On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote: > > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in > > discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new > > home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be in > > procps in the dark ages). This means shortly that pidof will disappear > > from sysvinit-tools and appear in procps. > > > > If your package uses pidof, we need to talk about it NOW so that this > > change doesn't put you in the lurch. I believe merely depending on procps > > will do what is needed, with the right version. > [...] > > I don't think this is a sensible thing to ask. There may be lots of > scripts using pidof that their maintainers don't know about. I suggest > using codesearch.debian.net to find the packages. > > I also wonder whether it would not be more sensible to split procps into > essential and non-essential binary packages. Aside from pidof, I bet > there are lots of scripts using pkill, pgrep, /bin/kill and ps without > the necessary dependency now. (I saw one using ps just the other day: > #719126.) > And is there a strong reason why we don't move whole procps into essential? O. -- Ondřej Surý <ond...@sury.org> Have you tried Knot DNS – https://www.knot-dns.cz/ – a high-performance authoritative-only DNS server