Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 08:51:42 -0700 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, mike@karels.net Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ps output line length change Message-ID: <1518882702.72050.204.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <201802170203.w1H23ZTE023044@slippy.cwsent.com> References: <201802170203.w1H23ZTE023044@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 2018-02-16 at 18:03 -0800, Cy Schubert wrote: > In message <201802170046.w1H0kvxN032252@mail.karels.net>, Mike Karels > writes: > > > > [...] > Agreed. I also agree scripts that expect wide output without ww are > broken. However Linux ps, at least Red Hat, behaves the same. I believe > the change was made to be more Linux compatible and allow greater > portability. > > > > > > > What do people think should be done? > That's a tough one. Break Linux compatibility or break BSD > compatibility? > > Generally Linux users use ps -ef which we don't support and columns are > different so, Linux compatibility is... well just isn't. > > My vote is to revert and have an environment variable with defaults, > e.g., PS=--linux or something similar. > > Linux compatibility is good and desirable, right up to the point where it stomps on BSD compatibility. I think we should revert to historic behavior. I'm agnostic about whether an env var is a good idea or not. I use the env vars for LESS and TOP and love the idea, but hate hate hate the names (I've fought with conflicts on the too-common name TOP multiple times over the years, most recently just last week my env var TOP confused some makefile that had a TOP var in it). Could the var be named something like PS_OPTS? -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1518882702.72050.204.camel>