Re: [ITA] procps

[Corinna Vinschen <corinna-cygwin@cygwin.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1856 bytes --]

On Mar 16 10:33, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 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

s/reason/motivation/

Yeah, that's better.

> 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.


Corinna

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

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]