Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 24 August 2006 15:33, mwoehlke wrote:
Matthew Burgess wrote:
We could just as easily patch procps to prevent it from installing its
versions of those two programs, but as we're preventing installation of
`su' as it is, it made sense to suppress coreutils kill and uptime in
the same patch.
I'd like to jump in and make a comment here... I have coreutils (5.97)
built on nine different platforms, but haven't even attempted to tackle
procps as it is not auto*-based (and so far I have not been motivated to
track down how to set up the build correctly, much less chase down bugs
and build errors). Unless procps is fixed/improved, dropping these from
coreutils means - from my POV - that they will be gone entirely.
the procps maintainer will never accept autotools (his words, not mine) ... i
sent him a patch to autotool the build system and it was rejected ;)
-mike
I can understand that given that it is only for Linux... but that means
that procps will likely only, ever, be supported on Linux, which is
unfortunate. (And yes, I know that is likely to be true anyway.)
Which, as I said, is IMO a good reason to keep 'kill' and 'uptime'
(especially 'uptime') in coreutils; otherwise you are essentially
removing software packages.
--
Matthew
We are Microsoft. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. --Badtech
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
Bug-coreutils@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
