IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include
procps in the default cloud images.

I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could be
offered which name the package we want (procps)

Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;)

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 9:00 PM mooff wrote:

IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include
procps in the default cloud images.

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the place to
discuss this. I note that procps is Priority: important and
debootstrap installs priority required/important packages by default,
so either something went wrong or the image build process is using the
minbase variant or deliberately removing props after install.

https://wiki.debian.org/Cloud#How_to_contribute

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote:

IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include procps in the default cloud images.

I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could be
offered which name the package we want (procps)

Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;)

What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian
cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the
current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is included:

https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json
https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean:

$ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps
bash: ps: command not found
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/#

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to

discuss this

Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it.

On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 11:21:29 -0700, Noah Meyerhans
<noahm@debian.org> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote:

IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include
procps in
the default cloud images.

I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could
be
offered which name the package we want (procps)

Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;)

What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian
cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the
current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is
included:

https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json
https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json
https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:59:25PM +0100, mooff wrote:

I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean:

$ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps
bash: ps: command not found
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/#

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss

this

Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it.

In this case, it's not correct - the cloud team doesn't produce the
debian docker images. There's support info on the docker hub page: https://hub.docker.com/_/debian

Ross

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 08:59:25PM +0100, mooff wrote:

I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean:

$ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps
bash: ps: command not found
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/#

That is not a cloud image.

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss

this

Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it.

Since container images are not published by the cloud team, this would not
be the right place to send this.

I believe that the people publishing container images want issues raised
on GitHub at https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts

In my opinion, leaving procps out of the base container images is a
reasonable decision. They're typically used as the basis for application-specific images, recipes for which typically pull in
whatever packages are necessary or helpful for supporting the
application's deployment. Populating the base images with packages that
aren't strictly necessary is undesirable, and I'd argue that it would be roughly equivalent to Debian packages declaring a Depends relationship
on a package that they don't strictly depend on.

noah

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 8:15 PM mooff wrote:

I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean:
$ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash

...

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to

discuss this

I don't think the docker images are produced by the Debian cloud team
(but are produced by Debian members IIRC) and I don't think they meet
the requirements for being called official Debian images.

https://wiki.debian.org/Teams/DPL/OfficialImages

--
bye,
pabs

https://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dnia Mon, 13 Sep 2021 20:59:25 +0100, mooff napisał(a):

I might have been imprecise in saying 'cloud' images, but I mean:

$ docker run -it --rm debian:bullseye bash
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/# ps
bash: ps: command not found
root@3ee3e7c4ce62:/#

Then, https://hub.docker.com/_/debian says:
"Where to file issues: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/issues"

And there we have: https://github.com/debuerreotype/docker-debian-artifacts/issues/20
-- "Missing procps package or feature?"

I think that `reportbug cloud.debian.org` would be the > place to discuss

this

Thanks Paul. I wasn't sure where to send it.

On Mon, Sep 13 2021 at 11:21:29 -0700, Noah Meyerhans <noahm@debian.org> wrote:

On Sun, Sep 12, 2021 at 09:33:54PM +0100, mooff wrote:

IMO, many human hours will be lost by the decision not to include
procps in
the default cloud images.

I understand it could be a security measure, but maybe stubs could
be
offered which name the package we want (procps)

Tracing my third call to apt-file search bin/ps ;)

What cloud images are you looking at? The images built by the Debian
cloud team *do* include procps. See the manifests for (some of) the current bullseye images, all of which indicate that procps is included:

https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-ec2-arm64.json
https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-generic-amd64.json
https://cloud.debian.org/images/cloud/bullseye/latest/debian-11-azure-amd64.json

--
Michał Politowski
Talking has been known to lead to communication if practiced carelessly.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)