[procps] Re: procps changes
- From: Jim Warner <james.warner@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:11:15 -0500
On Sep 26, 2011, at 1:34 PM, Sami Kerola wrote:
>> I think there's a small oops in the autogen.sh script so don't try
>> to merge just yet. I'm doing some more testing on Fedora, Suse and
>> Mint and will advise shortly.
>
> Is there? If yes the oops is very likely to be in util-linux as well,
> after all I copied script almost as is.
Hi Sami,
Below is the autogen.sh patch I had in mind. I tested the build on several
"new" linux installs that didn't yet have any development tools beyond gcc. On
those systems the following error messages were received:
./autogen.sh: line 46: libtoolize: command not found
./autogen.sh: line 47: test: =: unary operator expected
> BTW you can always trust me sending `git request-pull' when I think a
> branch is ready for review. Activity without request is usually a
> sign I have a patch set on mind, and that I'm not mad enough to keep
> more than few hours worth of work on my laptop only; disk will break,
> remote backups rock.
See, I was judging you by my and Craig's actions -- all those secret/silent
commits with no word whatsoever.
>> Here's what I've been doing locally and what might work on the real
>> master under ssh. But I would try a test branch first.
>> git pull git://gitorious.org/~kerolasa/procps/sami-procps-ng.git ng
>
> ?
Doesn't this do a fetch and merge in one command? I noticed however, that
after I do a rebase the history looks quite different (better/more accurate,
but missing the "merge").
Regards,
Jim
Other related posts:
