Re: Building coreutils in Linux From Scratch

[mwoehlke]

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