Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Fri, 30 May 2003 18:56:33 +0200 | From | Xose Vazquez Perez <> | Subject | Re: [announce] procps 2.0.13 with NPTL enhancements |
| |
Albert Cahalan wrote:
>> On Thu, 2003-05-29 at 18:08, Adrian Bunk wrote: > >>Once that bug is fixed, he will probably find >>that the inability to read files in /proc also >>causes a crash. Such is the problem with this >>duplicated effort. It sucks. > > > I could tell you about some inputs that > make your programs crash... Nah. Find them > yourself. I wait for your screams. >:-) > > You finally fixed a SEGV that I fixed well > over a year ago. Congradulations. You have > others to fix, and a minor (?) security > issue as well. Have fun. > > Oooh... I think you have an exploitable > buffer overflow as well. Anybody running > his procps as an i386 binary on IA-64? >[...]
Mine is longer, I have more hair, less tummy...
please, stop your childish nonsense.
A fork has sense if latter the code are going to merge (like gcc/egcs, xfree/xwin, linux/ac/mm/aa/osdl...) or the proyect are going to take another goal.
But to have two proyects, same code(more or less), same goal. And it's worse for to be a base crical package. Its's waste time/resources and to do a little different every distribution.
-thank you-
regards, -- Software is like sex, it's better when it's bug free.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |