Pending package updates, any gotchas?

Ulrich Fahrenberg uli at math.auc.dk
Thu Jul 31 01:08:17 PDT 2003


On 30 Jul 2003, Gerard Beekmans wrote:

> On Tue, 2003-07-29 at 22:09, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote:
> > [digit]. French translation seems correct with respect to this.) Your
> > preference may be different.
>
> I don't use i18n, so I don't have a preference. If both uptime
> programs work the same, then I don't care which one we use. If the
> procps version is better in terms of i18n, then we must create a
> patch for coreutils to disable the build of uptime. We already
> have coreutils-hostname and -uname patches. Adding an -uptime
> patch is not a big deal.
>
> Now we just need to determin if the procps version is good enough.
> Does anybody else have something to say on this issue?

I know I'm late, but here's my 2c: I prefer the procps uptime,
because: 1. Last I checked, sh-utils didn't contain a manpage for
uptime, but procps does. 2. As I wrote in another thread (subj: uptime
from sh-utils broken?), on my system the sh-utils-2.0 uptime just
plainly *does not work*. (And the procps-3.1.8 uptime *does work*.)

To me this makes a rather strong case for the procps uptime, but note
that I don't claim that the sh-utils uptime does not work in general.
It is quite possible that my system is to blame instead of sh-utils.

uli

-- 
Uli Fahrenberg -- http://www.math.auc.dk/~uli






More information about the lfs-dev mailing list