Le 9 août 2013 13:39, "Ben Hutchings" <ben@decadent.org.uk> a écrit :
>
> 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.
Could you open a bug for a Lintian check?
> 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.