Hello Mark, Craig, On Mon, Mar 21, 2022 at 10:34:58AM +0000, Mark Hindley wrote: > Craig, > > Thanks for this. > > This dates from before my detailed involvement with this area of Debian. I > have > read through the bug report, but apologies if I have missed pertinent detail. [....] > 3) A desire to reduce the Essential set. > > I understand and appreciate the general motivation for this. However, > moving > pidof to procps would make procps Essential and it is already about 20 > times > bigger than sysvinit-utils, so it does not achieve the aim. [...]
I don't see why you think pidof (and thus entire procps) must be Essential. That would indeed be counter-productive. (I haven't re-read the discussion, but I'm pretty sure we already covered this.) As I've already proven elsewhere sysvinit-utils (with or without pidof, which AFAIR is the only semi-useful utility left in that binary package) can be made non-essential without any problems already. > What do you think? I think apart from reducing the essential set, it is also useful to eliminate pointless differences. The distributions I've looked at (that are not just following along as a debian derivate) uses procps pidof already. Finally I have to say that I will not object to just closing this bug report (even though I think the original motivation still holds true), because atleast I don't have the energy to fight for forward movement anymore. Regards, Andreas Henriksson
