On Mon, 12 Jan 2026 at 01:01, Luca Boccassi <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 > I had a look into this and it seems the only valid required user of pidof is /usr/lib/lsb/init-functions Some init scripts call this, but they should be sourcing init-functions (most do) and using pidofproc() (some do). My understanding is the init-functions file is required for sysv init scripts only. So: * a sysv init system uses init scripts, which use init-functions, which needs pidof * systemd init system uses unit files and doesn't need init-functions or pidof I'm not 100% sure of that second bullet point. I'd really like that confirmed. Does sysvinit-utils need to be Essential at all? Is it just merely making sysvinit-core depend on sysvinit-utils (it does already) and then sysvinit-utils requires whatever package has pidof? Looking into it more and adjusting Helmut's suggested migration path[1] Is it a matter of: 1) sysvinit-core depends on sysvinit-utils (already does with a version) 2) sysvinit-utils has its Essential tag removed, its being pulled in by sysvinit-core 3) sysvinit-utils depends on and provides virtual package pidof 4) If there is anything that needs pidof but doesn't need sysvinit-utils it also depends on virtual package pidof 5) At some time sysvinit-utils drops the virtual package, doesn't install pidof, procps picks those up 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 > Looking again at that small intersection. Having procps pidof by itself would mean the (non systemd) sysctl isn't installed. I'm not sure there are that many systems like that. - Craig 1: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2023/11/msg00105.html
