On Tue, 13 Jan 2026 at 11:56, Craig Small <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
The second point is correct > 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 The virtual package could also just be skipped, and a dependency utils -> procps simply added, should provide the same results with fewer steps in between?
