Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements

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

Albert Cahalan wrote:

>> On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 18:08, Adrian Bunk wrote:
>
>>Once that bug is fixed, he will probably find
>>that the inability to read files in /proc also
>>causes a crash. Such is the problem with this
>>duplicated effort. It sucks.
>
>
> I could tell you about some inputs that
> make your programs crash... Nah. Find them
> yourself. I wait for your screams. >:-)
>
> You finally fixed a SEGV that I fixed well
> over a year ago. Congradulations. You have
> others to fix, and a minor (?) security
> issue as well. Have fun.
>
> Oooh... I think you have an exploitable
> buffer overflow as well. Anybody running
> his procps as an i386 binary on IA-64?
>[...]

Mine is longer, I have more hair, less tummy...

please, stop your childish nonsense.

A fork has sense if latter the code are going to merge
(like gcc/egcs, xfree/xwin, linux/ac/mm/aa/osdl...)
or the proyect are going to take another goal.

But to have two proyects, same code(more or less),
same goal. And it's worse for to be a base crical
package. Its's waste time/resources and to do a little
different every distribution.

-thank you-

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