On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 17:19:22 +0000, Jonathon Fernyhough wrote: >Just because something was "done" two years ago doesn't mean there's >not a better way of doing it. I guess you read [1] and [2]. As a side note, don't worry about the out-of-date flag from yesterday. IIRC procps-ng-classic from AUR never caused an issue, at least I can't comment the 3 comments at https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/procps-ng-classic/ . [1] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-December/044497.html On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:05:14 +0100, Tinu Weber wrote: >In this particular case, ask upstream (as also pointed out on the bug >tracker). Arch Linux does not patch software or deviate from its >default behaviour unless absolutely necessary (usually in case of bugs >that make an application unusable). > >[snip] > >An personal advice from my side, as I have also been burnt by that: >Don't try to discuss Arch Linux packaging decisions. There is nothing >you can really do. The least frustrating approach is to simply package >stuff your own and fix the things that annoy you (and from what I see, >you're already doing that). [2] https://lists.archlinux.org/pipermail/arch-general/2017-December/044496.html On Sat, 9 Dec 2017 18:00:01 +0100, Ralf Mardorf wrote: >I'm using procps-ng-classic from AUR since 2014. >[snip]
