9aa09d8862
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>
75 lines
706 B
Plaintext
75 lines
706 B
Plaintext
*.lo
|
|
*.o
|
|
*.so
|
|
*.swp
|
|
*.trs
|
|
.deps
|
|
.libs
|
|
.version
|
|
.dirstamp
|
|
ABOUT-NLS
|
|
aclocal.m4
|
|
autom4te.cache
|
|
compile
|
|
config.cache
|
|
config.guess
|
|
config.h
|
|
config.h.in
|
|
config.log
|
|
config.rpath
|
|
config.status
|
|
config.sub
|
|
configure
|
|
cov-int
|
|
depcomp
|
|
free
|
|
INSTALL
|
|
install-sh
|
|
kill
|
|
libtool
|
|
ltmain.sh
|
|
m4/
|
|
man-po/translated
|
|
man-po/*.pot
|
|
man-po/man.stamp
|
|
man-po/??/*
|
|
man-po/??_??/*
|
|
Makefile
|
|
Makefile.in
|
|
missing
|
|
mkinstalldirs
|
|
pgrep
|
|
pidof
|
|
pkill
|
|
pmap
|
|
pidwait
|
|
procps-ng-*.tar.xz
|
|
proc/.depend
|
|
proc/libproc-2.la
|
|
proc/libproc-2.pc
|
|
proc/Makefile
|
|
proc/Makefile.in
|
|
ps/Makefile
|
|
ps/Makefile.in
|
|
ps/pscommand
|
|
pwdx
|
|
skill
|
|
slabtop
|
|
snice
|
|
stamp-h1
|
|
sysctl
|
|
test-driver
|
|
tload
|
|
top/Makefile
|
|
top/Makefile.in
|
|
top/top
|
|
uptime
|
|
vmstat
|
|
w
|
|
watch
|
|
*~
|
|
*.log
|
|
*.sum
|
|
*.exe
|
|
*.mo
|