On Fri, 2013-08-09 at 21:10 +1000, Craig Small wrote: > Besides my Debian duties I am also upstream for procps. I have been in > discussion with the sysvinit-tools upstream and they want to find a new > home for pidof so it "fits" with similiar tools (pidof used to be in > procps in the dark ages). This means shortly that pidof will disappear > from sysvinit-tools and appear in procps. > > If your package uses pidof, we need to talk about it NOW so that this > change doesn't put you in the lurch. I believe merely depending on procps > will do what is needed, with the right version. [...] I don't think this is a sensible thing to ask. There may be lots of scripts using pidof that their maintainers don't know about. I suggest using codesearch.debian.net to find the packages. I also wonder whether it would not be more sensible to split procps into essential and non-essential binary packages. Aside from pidof, I bet there are lots of scripts using pkill, pgrep, /bin/kill and ps without the necessary dependency now. (I saw one using ps just the other day: #719126.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I say we take off; nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part