[procps] Re: procps changes

  • From: Craig Small <csmall-procps@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: procps@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 23 Sep 2011 09:28:26 +1000

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 04:10:05AM -0500, Jim Warner wrote:
> 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 think it should be libproc-ng so there is no mistake on what it is.
Debian has a few build dependencies on libproc-dev which means they link
to libproc but it is not many.

autotools is a pain but it solves a lot of problems too so I do think
putting it in will help with things.  The wierd install directories is a
standard part of how it works.

Don't fiddle with rpath on anything you put into git, I still remember
the bad old rpath mess days.

We probably should be aiming for a release soon. I think the auto* plus
the procps ng changes is a good place to draw a line in the sand and get
a new version out.  I know Debian is not near a new stable release so it
works for me.

I've been toying with the idea of internationalising procps too.  Not
before the release but afterwards.  Most of the main tools have this
feature and I've converted programs before that do this and its
reasonably straightforward.  Albert was against it because he didnt want
to add dependencies but its there in ls etc so the hit is already been

I'll work on getting the patches into git this weekend if they're not
already there and do some testing.

 - Craig

Craig Small VK2XLZ    http://www.enc.com.au/       csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux      http://www.debian.org/       csmall at : debian.org
old fingerprint:       1C1B D893 1418 2AF4 45EE  95CB C76C E5AC 12CA DFA5
NEW fingerprint:       5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2  0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5

Other related posts: