What to call the new library?
Keep using libprocps wouldn't do, its a very different library from
the programs' point of view. It would also mean we could have some
clashes around the packages (two package names, same library name).
The ancient procps used libproc or libproc-a.b.c where a.b.c was the
package version. Kept the revision numbers down (it was always 0.0.0)
but the name of the library changed.
So if we use libproc-2 is there a clash with an ancient procps?
procps v 2.0.0 was around in 1999 so it was 22 years ago, also the
name of the library would have been libproc-2.0.0.so not libproc-2.so
so we're fine with that.
libproc-2 seems to fit, our second major re-work of the procps
library.
Signed-off-by: Craig Small <csmall@dropbear.xyz>
This will be required for subdir-objects, otherwise automake will have
problems with more than one Makefile.am having rules to build the same
files.
Tested that it builds and both `make check` and `make distcheck` work.
Tested `make install` and compared the tree with the one installed
before this commit, both installed the binaries to the same locations.
The binaries are also in the same location in the build tree (for
instance, ps/pscommand is still there.)
Checked the binaries for the correct libraries linked into them. Binary
sizes matched before and after this change.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden@google.com>
The two extra extended pmap options were not tested previously.
We test against our known process and process 1 which we should
not be able to get data for.
Unfortunately, the tests cannot catch SEGSEGVs but they should.
Signed-off-by: Craig Small <csmall@enc.com.au>
Even as conservative project as coreutils has switched to xz distributions so
neither should we have any reason to use gz and waste space & bandwidth.
Signed-off-by: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>
The library used to be called libprocps but it was renamed to make sure
there was only one. However the formatting of the library SONAME has
changed so there cannot be any confusion.
libprocps makes it clear that its a library from this project and not a
set of functions directly on the filesystem.
Previously the version of libproc always tracked the version of procps.
This doesn't work when other non-procps programs link to the library as
they are always playing catch up.
This change makes the library version independent of the procps version.
It will only be incremented when needed.
procps works well on Linux, on other arches there are some strange
differences due to their emulation of procfs which is not 100%
Disabling checks for non-linux until that can be sorted out.
The library file version string is taken from configure.ac AC_INIT.
Reference: http://www.freelists.org/archive/procps/09-2011
Signed-off-by: Jim Warner <james.warner@comcast.net>
Signed-off-by: Craig Small <csmall-procps@enc.com.au>
Signed-off-by: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>
This will revert change at Oct 2002 when autotools support was
removed.
Unlike before the package developers are expected to use
./autogen.sh to generate ./configure script, and run make after
that. The build system is also able to create, with make dist, a
tar ball release which compiles correctly, and has files which
seemed to be important to have.
The patch removes few unnecessary files, but no everything. Files
procps.lsm and procps.spec in git repository are useless as is,
but I left them lying around for someone who can make more
justified call about removal of them.
Last, but not least package version number is set 3.3.0 to
distinct this procps from the sourceforge's upstream procps.
Please notice that libproc relese is kept as 3.2.8.
Signed-off-by: Sami Kerola <kerolasa@iki.fi>
