On Mar 16 00:14, Wayne Porter wrote:
> 
> On March 15, 2016 11:52:35 PM PDT, Achim Gratz <Stromeko@nexgo.de> wrote:
> >Wayne Porter writes:
> >> I have just finished porting procps 3.3.9 and wanted to share it with
> >> the community.
> >
> >That's actually procps-ng or is it not?  If so, it seems the current
> >version is 3.3.11 from looking at my Linux box.
> >
> >Also, the current procps maintainer is quite active on the Cygwin ml,
> >so
> >it would have been a good idea to ask for an update first before doing
> >an ITA.  :-)
> >
> >
> >Regards,
> >Achim.
> 
> I'm new to this community so I wasn't sure if I went about this the
> proper way. 3.3.11 is the latest but is not listed as stable in the
> debian package list. I was going by the guidelines on the contribution
> page that for it to be considered for the repos that it has to be.

Don't worry about that for now.  As the others pointed out, I'm the
current procps maintainer.  I have no problems to give up procps
maintainership, but I don't think this is necessary here in the first
place.

The reason is: Your package is in fact procps-ng, and from my POV it
should stick to this name as in various Linux distros.  My procps code
is from the older codebase.  I never felt a good reason to port the
newer procps-ng codebase to Cygwin, so this is a welcome package.

I happily give up procps in favor of procps-ng, as long as it works as
desired.

So, please go ahead with your ITP per the other maintainers request.


Thanks,
Corinna

-- 
Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
Cygwin Maintainer                 cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat