On Thu, 30 Oct 2025 19:58:37 +1100 Craig Small <[email protected]> wrote: > Path B: We decide to use the procps pidof. Then there are two questions. > 1) Should the procps pidof package be Essential? > 2) Should the procps pidof package be separate to procps and libproc2? > > My preference is for 1) the answer is no. This package would only be needed > because sysvinit-utils needs it, so a dependency should cover it. > The "main" procps package would probably need a dependency/recommends on it > just so pidof is there for users.
Sounds reasonable > For 2) I have no real preference. Keeping pidof in main procps is easier > for me, but it does mean anything that needs sysvinit-utils > will pull in procps and its libraries. Most people would install procps > anyway but there might be a subsection that use sysvinit > and don't install procps; I have no idea what this number is. The breaking > out of pidof from procps would be for this intersection of users. Start without adding a new package which is operationally easier (no new queue to clear) and see how it goes? It can always be added later, if it turns out it's needed
