On Mon, 13 Nov 2023 at 21:07, Craig Small <csm...@debian.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 14 Nov 2023 at 06:09, Mark Hindley <m...@hindley.org.uk> wrote: >> >> IIUC, the proposal[1] was to create a new Essential procps-base just >> containing >> pidof. Otherwise bin:procps would have to become Essential itself. Its >> installed >> size is about 20 times larger than sysvinit-util and that wouldn't >> contribute to >> shrinking the Essential set. >> >> I think this approach would also require a debian-devel email announcing the >> addition to the Essential set and I suppose the new src:procps will need a >> trip >> through NEW. > > Good catch, I'll write something up on this as it changes a lot. There are > probably two questions > 1) Does pidof need to be in an Essential package? While a lot of packages do > have pidof in them a lot (but not all) of those are in init scripts. > 2) Does pidof need its own package then
I think it's easier and less work for everyone involved to keep it essential for now, and then eventually be scaled back and merged back into the existing package later.
