Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements

[Xose Vazquez Perez <xose@wanadoo.es>]

Miquel van Smoorenburg wrote:

>In article <1054138948.783.179.camel@localhost>, Robert Love <rml@tech9.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2003-05-28 at 23:19, Phil Oester wrote:
>>
>>> Any comment on the procps v3.1.8 located here:
>>>
>>> http://procps.sourceforge.net/
>>>
>>> Seems it is actively maintained...
>>
>>It is a fork of the original procps tree.

>Well, you could also argue that the current 2.0 tree is a
>retroactive fork of an older version of procps.

>I don't understand why you don't work together.

--from the http://procps.sourceforge.net/faq.html --
Why are there so many procps projects?

The original maintainer seems to have had little time for procps.
Whatever his reasons, the project didn't get maintained. Starting
in 1997, Albert Cahalan wrote a new ps program for the package.
For the next few years, Albert quietly helped the Debian package
maintainer fix bugs. In 2001, Rik van Riel decided to do something
about what appeared to be the lack of a maintainer. He picked up
the buggy old code in Red Hat's CVS and started adding patches.
Meanwhile, other people have patched procps in a great many ways.
In 2002, Albert moved procps to this site. This was done to ensure
that years of testing and bug fixes would not be lost. The major
version number was changed to 3, partly to avoid confusing users
and partly because the top program has been redone.
--end--

I think too that is to waste the time&resources to have two,
and to do a little  different some LiNUX distributions in a basic
and important package

but if both have freetime... ;-)

regards,
-- 
Software is like sex, it's better when it's bug free.