Re: MBF proposal: pidof used without Depends: procps

On 07/05/26 13:30, Craig Small wrote:
> On Thu, 7 May 2026 at 08:45, Gioele Barabucci <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     at least one of the binary packages built from ${SOURCE} appears to use
>     `pidof` at runtime. `pidof` will soon be provided by `procps` and will
>     no longer be part of the Essential set.
> 
> While this does give all the information, I'd like it to emphasise that 
> its not something
> the developer missed, but the situation has changed. Also that they 
> didn't need to consider
> where pidof came from previously because it was in an essential package.

Good point(s), thanks Craig.

New introductory paragraphs:

```
At least one of the binary packages built from ${SOURCE} appears to use 
`pidof` at runtime. Historically, `pidof` was provided by the Essential 
package `sysvinit-tools`, making an explicit dependency unnecessary. 
However `pidof` will soon be moved to `procps` and will no longer be 
part of the Essential set.

Please add an explicit dependency on `procps` to all binary packages of
${SOURCE} that use `pidof`.
```

Regards,