procps-ng is a mistake (was: Re: Summary/Minutes from today's FESCo Meeting (2012-05-14))

Bill Nottingham notting at
Mon May 14 20:21:15 UTC 2012

Lennart Poettering (mzerqung at said: 
> > * #851 F18 Feature: procps-ng (next generation procps tools) -
> >  (sgallagh,
> >   18:11:34)
> >   * AGREED: Feature procps-ng is accepted (9 +1)  (sgallagh, 18:14:47)
> Ahem. I think is is a really bad idea. "-ng" packages point to a huge
> failure in the handling of the packages in question, and should not be
> deemed a feature for Linux but a failure of Linux

<putting FESCo hat on>

I read this as simply a feature saying we're switching from procps upstream
X to procps upstream Y. To be honest, I'm not sure it's even worthy of a

The -ng naming is unfortunate, but so are many other things. In fact, we're
shipping a version from this upstream already, just not the new
all-distro-patches-merged version.

So, it's essentially a no-op.


More information about the devel mailing list