On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:39:20PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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. For the three flags that might go, the results are: -c: corosync, glusterfs and sheepdog -n: no packages -m: not available on Debian pidof
> 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.) I happen to think this is probably the best way. There are lots of things using pidof and ps in scripts, usually init scripts. (As an aside, this is probably wrong; there is a lsb function for this sort of thing; also kill `pidof blah` is not nice either). It would come down to what is left over and is it worth putting it into another package. lsb-base uses pidof and libc6 preinst amongst other things also calls it. For reference, procps lost it's Essential flag in early 1998, though I cannot locate the bug report on it. Other than my email about it[1] I don't see any other discussion. - Craig [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/02/msg01095.html -- Craig Small VK2XLZ http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130811012846.ga20...@enc.com.au