Re: pidof changing from sysvinit-devel to procps
On Fri, Aug 09, 2013 at 01:39:20PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> 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.
For the three flags that might go, the results are:
-c: corosync, glusterfs and sheepdog
-n: no packages
-m: not available on Debian pidof
> 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.)
I happen to think this is probably the best way. There are lots of things
using pidof and ps in scripts, usually init scripts. (As an aside, this is
probably wrong; there is a lsb function for this sort of thing; also
kill `pidof blah` is not nice either). It would come down to what
is left over and is it worth putting it into another package.
lsb-base uses pidof and libc6 preinst amongst other things also calls it.
For reference, procps lost it's Essential flag in early 1998, though
I cannot locate the bug report on it. Other than my email about it[1]
I don't see any other discussion.
- Craig
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/1998/02/msg01095.html
--
Craig Small VK2XLZ 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
Reply to: