[bugzilla at linuxfromscratch.org: [Bug 418] procps-3.0.5]
matthias at winterdrache.de
Thu Oct 24 10:50:07 PDT 2002
On Thu, 24 Oct 2002 12:20:42 +0100 "Matthew Burgess"
<ca9mbu at eos.sunderland.ac.uk> wrote:
> Well, from what I heard (and I can't remember where I heard it) - the
> 2.x series that Rik van Riel is now maintaining is the one being used by
> the guys on lkml and is more in sync with the current kernel
> developments, but how true this is I'm not in a position to say.
I'm sure it's true. After all Rik van Riel is as close to the kernel as
you can get. However, this is not relevant for LFS. We don't use unstable
kernels and I think that for this reason choosing a bleeding edge procps
branch is not a good choice. I'm pretty sure that RvR doesn't really care
much about backwards compatibility of procps. To me it sounds like he
picked up work on procps out of necessity to get something that works with
the most recent 2.5 kernels. Stability, compatibility and cleanliness are
certainly low priorities for him (after all, he's pretty busy with more
important/interesting kernel stuff).
Of course that doesn't mean the SourceForge project is naturally better
(it always depends on the ability of the programmers behind it) but at
least its focus is more in line with what LFS needs.
> <rant>Open source is all well and good until people abuse it by
> releasing"derived" projects. Why either Rik or the maintainer of the
> sourceforge based project couldn't collaborate, thereby having just the
> single procps package I don't know.</rant>
This is from kernel traffic:
And Rik [van Riel] also said:
Albert Cahalan's procps seems to be focussed on rewriting and
The procps project I'm maintaining is more focussed on supporting the
latest stats exported by 2.5. I hope to get some time to clean up the
source code, too...
Objectivity is just collective subjectivity.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-dev