On Tue, 2002-03-26 at 19:44, Alex Larsson wrote: > On Tue, 26 Mar 2002, Shivram U wrote: > > > Hi Havoc, > > > > > It's fine to keeping these in CVS, but getting them into the GNOME > > > module list will probably require an answer to the question "why > > > didn't you just port procman to support Solaris" (for the ProcView > > > one). > > > > > > Havoc > > > > Keeping these in CVS should be fine. This way interested developers can > > access them and work on the same. > > The reason i didnt port procman to support Solaris is because procman > > depends on libgtop and i took out the dependency with gprocview. > > Ofcourse these are still in the infancy stage and have a long way to go to > > get into the GNOME module list. > > You took out the porting layer and then you expect the rest of the > community to fix the fact that your app only works on solaris? > Seems a bit strange to me. s/strange/stupid, moronic, usual/g Pfffff -- /Bastien Nocera http://hadess.net
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part