RE: Two versions of uptime, one in procps-010801-2 and one in sh-utils-2.0-3

["Chris January" <chris at atomice dot net>]

> 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