[Steve Langasek] > Please inform debian-devel of this change as well so the impact can > be discussed more widely.
Yeah. > I know that I for one have chroots where sysvinit-utils is installed > as a transitively essential package, and procps is not. I don't > know if pidof is actually going to be a problem for anyone in this > regard, but I don't know that it *won't* be - so we should get some > more eyeballs on this change. I guess the safe approach to implement this change is to make sysvinit-utils depend on procps while we try to figure out every package using pidof. :) Not a very attractive scenario, but at least scripts should keep working. A archive wide grep for pidof should not be too hard to do, and would provide a upper limit on the number of packages that would need to get their dependencies updated. -- Happy hacking Petter Reinholdtsen _______________________________________________ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
