On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:05 AM, David Walser luigiwal...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a fork of procps called procps-ng, which I think lives here:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/procps-ng
Debian has switched to using it, as can be seen here:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 16:13, D.Morgan dmorga...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:05 AM, David Walser luigiwal...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a fork of procps called procps-ng, which I think lives here:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/procps-ng
Debian has switched to using it, as can be seen
Pascal Terjan wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 16:13, D.Morgan dmorga...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:05 AM, David Walser luigiwal...@yahoo.com wrote:
There is a fork of procps called procps-ng, which I think lives here:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/procps-ng
Debian has switched to
On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:50:06AM -0500, David Walser wrote:
Yes, and the Fedora git shows they have switched to it, although they
forgot to update the version number.
So if those distributions really switched (and not just claimed by -ng),
then +1 for switching.
--
Regards,
Olav
There is a fork of procps called procps-ng, which I think lives here:
http://www.ohloh.net/p/procps-ng
Debian has switched to using it, as can be seen here:
http://packages.debian.org/changelogs/pool/main/p/procps/procps_3.3.2-3/changelog
Should we switch to it as well, or stick with procps?
