> On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 01:00:55AM -0000, Chris January wrote: > >> On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 11:56:49AM +0100, Volker Zell wrote: > >The original binary (from sh-utils-2.0.15-1) failed on my machine, > > There is no uptime.exe in sh-utils-2.0.15-1. > > >but when I built uptime myself it used the /proc/uptime file and worked > >fine. This would seem to be a build issue in the sh-utils package. > >Has it been built against a recent version of Cygwin lately? I'm not > >convinced bumping the procps version number is the right solution, I > >think it would be better to rebuild sh-utils. > > Are you saying that you want to eliminate uptime.exe from your > package? The alternative is two different packages with two different > executables. That is not acceptable. > > If that's what you want then you still need to release a new version of > your package. It seems sort of silly to have you remove uptime.exe from > your package, have me re-add it to mine, track down why it is not > working (if it isn't working -- I didn't even check it), and then have > both of us do a new release (although I'm in the process of creating a > new release to deal with Volker's problems now anyway). > > I don't see much logic in putting uptime.exe back in sh-utils.
Ok, I'll bump the version on procps then. Chris J
