|
From: | mwoehlke |
Subject: | Re: Building coreutils in Linux From Scratch |
Date: | Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:50:54 -0500 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060719 Thunderbird/1.5.0.5 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 |
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
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |