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 As a side note, don't worry about the out-of-date flag from yesterday.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]