Re: xload not part of xproc any more.

[csmall@scooter.o.i.net]

Mark W. Eichin wrote:
> I'd *prefer* that you simply kept the old xproc-xload in xproc, as a
> set of debian-local diffs.  If you decide you don't want to do that,
> as x-contrib maintainer I'll need those sources somewhere (perhaps as
> part of the bugreport, or at least pointed to somewhere relatively
> long term, from there) in order to make sure the xcontrib one (which
> has probably rotted, it hasn't been built in a while) is as good as
> the one that the procps people are (for some strange reason) dropping.
I had a look at the two sources and couldn't see much in the way of 
significant differences between the two.  I do not want to keep putting
in an abandoned version of xload. At least xcontrib the source comes with
it.

The version that comes with xcontrib is more recent:
/* $XConsortium: xload.c,v 1.37 94/04/17 20:43:44 converse Exp $ */

than the one with xproc:
 * $XConsortium: xload.c,v 1.36 91/05/24 16:57:46 converse Exp $

So you're better off using the xcontrib one anyway.

I downloaded the sources of xcontrib and found that I only needed to
put a xload in the toplevel Imakefile to get it to compile, it ran fine.

If you still want diffs of the two, let me know, but I think we'd be better
off without them.

Also, if you are busy I will make a non-maintainer update for you. I'm sort
of the cause of this trouble.

  - Craig


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .