Re: yet another update to the post-halloween doc.

Bill Davidsen
2002-11-07T16:27:22Z

On 6 Nov 2002, Robert Love wrote:

> > procps
> > ~~~~~~
> > - The 2.5 /proc filesystems changed some statistics, which confuse
> > older versions of procps. Rik van Riel and Robert Love have
> > been maintaining a version of procps during the 2.5 cycle which
> > tracks changes to /proc which you can find at http://tech9.net/rml/procps/
> > - Alternatively, the original procps by Albert Cahalan now supports
> > the altered formats since v3.0.5, but lags behind the bleeding edge
> > version maintained by Rik and Robert. -- http://procps.sf.net/
> > - The /proc/meminfo format changed slightly which also broke
> > gtop in strange ways.
>
> Just a note that the tree Rik and I are hacking on is the original and
> not a fork. It is the same tree mkj created and is in the official Red
> Hat CVS repository. It just has not had much activity lately and now it
> has new blood :)
>
> Albert's tree is a fork.
>
> If you are using the official procps package, I think you need at least
> 2.0.8 or so - but the latest version is ideal, which is 2.0.10.

I don't want to get into politics on this, but wasn't Albert the
maintainer of procps? I think I saw him state that you guys started
releasing your own versions instead of sending him patches,

I can't find a maintainer's name in any of the not so old versions I
have here, so I am just replaying my recollection of his statement as a
question.

For what it's worth, both recent versions seem to work, his top is far
prettier;-)

--
bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com>
CTO, TMR Associates, Inc
Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.