[Pkg-sysvinit-devel] procps with pidof is released

[Craig Small]

On Sun, Dec 08, 2013 at 06:56:57PM +0000, Roger Leigh wrote:
> That sounds fine, I think.  So on the sysvinit-utils side, we simply
> drop pidof?
Yes, and the man page too.

> Will procps-base be guaranteed to be installed via upgrade?
Now this I am unsure. It will be Essential but do new Essential packages
automatically get installed?

> I imagine we'll have to also have a depends on
> procps-base >= 3.3.9-1 to ensure pidof is available at all times
> during the upgrade?
That depends on how Essential is handled.


> To ensure proper upgrade ordering, should the
> procps-base Breaks also be a Conflicts?  (I mean, we want to avoid
> a window where any other packages/maintainer scripts need to use
> pidof but sysvinit-utils is upgraded but the new procps-base is not
> yet unpacked)
I don't think so. I'm not an expert at how dpkg works but I thought if
procps-base Breaks sysvinit << X.Y.Z then if sysvinit X.Y.Z is there
it won't get installed.

> Just to double-check: the new pidof is completely compatible with
> the old?
It's compatible in how it is called in Debian. There are some flags
dropped but we never had them in the first place. It is a complete
re-write by the sysvinit maintainers but they needed to move it out
of that package; I assume its to do with upstart/systemd/whatever
situation that all distributions are struggling/debating/arguing
about.

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small (@smallsees)   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