Hi,

Does anyone know about procinfo's version? Our package has it as
version 19, when the source file is procinfo-18.tar.gz and all the files
inside say version 18. Is this a typo?


Allan

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Does anyone know about procinfo's version? *Our package has it as version
> 19, when the source file is procinfo-18.tar.gz and all the files inside say
> version 18. * Is this a typo?
>
> Allan
>
>

No idea, the patch name use 19 too. Maybe we should switch to
procinfo-ng: http://sourceforge.net/projects/procinfo-ng/ if someone
wants to do the work.

Eric

On 18/04/10 23:20, Eric Bélanger wrote:

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

Hi,

Does anyone know about procinfo's version? Our package has it as version
19, when the source file is procinfo-18.tar.gz and all the files inside say
version 18. Is this a typo?



No idea, the patch name use 19 too. Maybe we should switch to
procinfo-ng: http://sourceforge.net/projects/procinfo-ng/ if someone
wants to do the work.



Sure... is it actually better, or just want to be better? What do
other distros use?


If it looks like this is a good replacement, I will do the packaging.

Allan

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
> On 18/04/10 23:20, Eric Bélanger wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> *wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Does anyone know about procinfo's version? *Our package has it as version
>>> 19, when the source file is procinfo-18.tar.gz and all the files inside
>>> say
>>> version 18. * Is this a typo?
>>>
>>
>> No idea, the patch name use 19 too. Maybe we should switch to
>> procinfo-ng: http://sourceforge.net/projects/procinfo-ng/ if someone
>> wants to do the work.
>>
>
> Sure... *is it actually better, or just want to be better?

No idea. That's what I meant by "doing the work". Someone will need
to check if it's better and do the replacement if so.

What do other
> distros use?

Debian is using it for their testing and unstable release.

>
> If it looks like this is a good replacement, I will do the packaging.
>
> Allan
>

On 19/04/10 11:53, Eric Bélanger wrote:

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 7:12 PM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:

On 18/04/10 23:20, Eric Bélanger wrote:


On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 6:15 AM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:


Hi,

Does anyone know about procinfo's version? Our package has it as version
19, when the source file is procinfo-18.tar.gz and all the files inside
say
version 18. Is this a typo?



No idea, the patch name use 19 too. Maybe we should switch to
procinfo-ng: http://sourceforge.net/projects/procinfo-ng/ if someone
wants to do the work.



Sure... is it actually better, or just want to be better?


No idea. That's what I meant by "doing the work". Someone will need
to check if it's better and do the replacement if so.

What do other

distros use?


Debian is using it for their testing and unstable release.



I had just looked Debian up and saw that. That is evidence enough for
me that the -ng version is the way to go.


Allan