Re: bsdutils claims to provide kill, which is wrong (was Re: Bug#64460: whois package shouldn't be Priority: important, rather optional)

[csmall@eye-net.com.au (Craig Small)]

On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 07:30:07PM -0400, Mike Bilow wrote:
> It is very hard to hunt down a lot of this information.  For example, the
> bsdutils description claims that it provides "kill," but in fact it is
> procps that provides "kill."  Although bsdutils is "required," it actually
bsdutils used to, but procps does now.

> seem to be "required."  This is at least a doc error, but it seems to me
> that bsdutils and bsdmainutils should both be "standard."
I'll leave that to the bsdutils maintainer.

> It seems strange at best that procps and bsdutils are both "required," but
> that procps states that it replaces bsdutils.  My guess is that the
> maintainer for procps really intended to say that procps replaces older
> versions of bsdutils, but that is not how it is in the database.
Replaces, in Debian terms, is a pretty awful word to use here. When it
is used in a control file it means some part of procps replaces some
part of bsdutils.  It is important to have that so procps will work
with older bsdutils packages.  Granted procps should now use a versioned
dependency but it is not essential.

Replaces doesn't mean procps totally replaces bsdutils. Confusing? You
better believe it! But neither me or the bsdutils maintainer made up the
control names.

> As the maintainer for cron, which I concur should be "important," you
> probably have a better idea than I do why it depends upon bsdutils.  If
> you are looking for kill, it is in procps.  Other than bsdmainutils,
I'm not even sure that cron needs kill anymore.
The other thing is that procps is required, so I don't think you need
dependencies.

  - Craig
-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ  GnuPG:1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
Eye-Net Consulting http://www.eye-net.com.au/        <csmall@eye-net.com.au>
MIEEE <csmall@ieee.org>                 Debian developer <csmall@debian.org>