[procps] Re: procps changes
- From: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@xxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2011 12:07:21 +0200
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 11:10, Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sep 21, 2011, at 1:30 PM, Sami Kerola wrote:
>
>> I just made a test, and found upstream master will still merge without
>> problems with my master branch, which has autotools. I have another
>> branch called `ng' which changes the name, and requires the autotools
>> change. Could someone consider reviewing the patch set, and assuming
>> that all is OK merge these to upstream.
>
> I tried a merge and build of your ng branch.
>
> The patch below represents the changes I made for a successful build. I also
> added strverscmp to be safe since it's used in a top macro.
That is reasonable thing to do.
> I'm an autotools newbie so my changes may not be the most proper.
The change in your patch
-AC_CHECK_HEADER_STDBOOL
+AC_HEADER_STDBOOL
might make the autotools behave nicer way. The AC_CHECK.. is rather
new, and it only does a check. AC_HEADER is older and will put to
config.h HAVE_STDBOOL_H true or false. I don't see that the
HAVE_STDBOOL_H value would be used anywhere, so it is irrelevant from
that point of view which one to use. But perhaps it's better to use
older macro, so that people who don't have/use the shiniest autotools
can build without issues.
> I don't know if it can or should be automated, but after my "install" I
> needed to manually update ldconfig for the dynamic library default location.
Something is wrong. Could you tell what you moved and to where.
PREFIX+"anything here" is interesting.
> Lastly, do you think that libproc-3.3.0 should also carry the "ng"
> identifier? Albert's version may shortly be at the same level and that would
> avoid a name collision.
I am not good enough programmer to advice how to deal library
versioning without having issues. I hope someone from distributions
side could ask local lib guru to advice how to rename libraries
without havoc. I'm sure this has been done earlier, but I've never
done such. That's why I kept everything as close how things where, so
that compatibility would be as easy as possible.
> p.s. It looks like you did a very thorough job of updating all references to
> procps as well as the documentation and runtime messages dealing with bug
> reporting.
Thanks. I read that as a; the patch set is not hopeless and may result
to a merge after rigor testing and careful consideration what to do
with lib release number.
--
Sami Kerola
http://www.iki.fi/kerolasa/
Other related posts:
