On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:56:57PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote: > That sounds fine, I think. So on the sysvinit-utils side, we simply > drop pidof? Yes, and the man page too.
> Will procps-base be guaranteed to be installed via upgrade? Now this I am unsure. It will be Essential but do new Essential packages automatically get installed? > I imagine we'll have to also have a depends on > procps-base >= 3.3.9-1 to ensure pidof is available at all times > during the upgrade? That depends on how Essential is handled. > To ensure proper upgrade ordering, should the > procps-base Breaks also be a Conflicts? (I mean, we want to avoid > a window where any other packages/maintainer scripts need to use > pidof but sysvinit-utils is upgraded but the new procps-base is not > yet unpacked) I don't think so. I'm not an expert at how dpkg works but I thought if procps-base Breaks sysvinit << X.Y.Z then if sysvinit X.Y.Z is there it won't get installed. > Just to double-check: the new pidof is completely compatible with > the old? It's compatible in how it is called in Debian. There are some flags dropped but we never had them in the first place. It is a complete re-write by the sysvinit maintainers but they needed to move it out of that package; I assume its to do with upstart/systemd/whatever situation that all distributions are struggling/debating/arguing about. - Craig -- Craig Small (@smallsees) http://enc.com.au/ csmall at : enc.com.au Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/ csmall at : debian.org GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2 0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5 _______________________________________________ Pkg-sysvinit-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-sysvinit-devel
