I prefer this way myself. Also if people really want sysvinit pidof its still there; e.g if procps pidof breaks some obscure thing horribly, they're one update-alternative away from health.
- Craig On Tue, 5 May 2026 at 17:34, Andrew Bower <[email protected]> wrote: > Sub-thread aimed at easing and accelerating the transition: > > On Mon, Apr 27, 2026 at 10:47:55PM +0200, Gioele Barabucci wrote: > > 4. Inside a single dinstall window, a modified version of > `sysvinit-tools` > > (without `pidof`) and a modified version of `procps` (with `pidof`) will > be > > uploaded. (WIP patches can be found at [4] and [5].) > > Symlinks are cheap and dh_installalternatives is easy to use. > > How about bringing a modified version of step 4 forward to steps 0a and > 0b? > > 0a) We could immediately upload sysvinit-utils with pidof renamed to > /usr/bin/pidof.sysvinit with an alternative of priority 40. > > 0b) Then we could upload procps with pidof provided as > /usr/bin/pidof.procps with an alternative of priority 80 and an > appropriate versioned Breaks clause. > > Then we could more quickly smoke out possible issues and make it easier > for people to play with both tools in parallel. >
