Hi Debian Release Team, I released probably the best way of knowing if "we have the time" or not is to ask you. So what is this change?
It is replacing the pidof in sysv-init-utils with the pidof in procps. This will involve making a new Essential package procps-base which will only have pidof statically linked (to not pull in libproc-2). Then sysv-init-utils would remove pidof and not be marked Essential. There is some talk of in the long-run making packages needing pidof to depend on it, but that is a while off and I'm not sure its possible. - Craig ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Craig Small <csm...@debian.org> Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2025 at 20:24 Subject: Re: Bug#810018: New Essential package procps-base To: Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> Cc: <810...@bugs.debian.org> On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 21:07, Luca Boccassi <bl...@debian.org> wrote: > On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 at 09:26, Craig Small <csm...@debian.org> wrote: > - src:procps with a new procps-pidof binary package that > breaks/replaces current sysvinit-utils and with prio: essential > - drop pidof and prio:essential from sysvinit-utils and add depends on > procps-pidof > There's also the case that packages that have an implicit dependency on sysvinit-utils will have an explicit one. pidof would ideally be built statically, so not to pull in libprocps. There was also the issue about init scripts sourcing init-d-script. systemd unit files don't need this but there are still quite a few like this. pidof is also a symlink to killall5, I assume replaces works with them but not 100% sure. Probably the biggest problem is Trixie freeze, its about 3 weeks away. There was a discussion about this change a while ago, but I'm not sure if we can make it this time or best to wait until after Trixie. - Craig > > Shouldn't this work? >
