Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:34:11 +0600 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru> To: Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no> Cc: fb-standards@psconsult.nl Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures Message-ID: <20040326143411.GA1508@regency.nsu.ru> In-Reply-To: <xzpr7vgf17a.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <1080165171.2232.910.camel@cube> <20040325191745.GB71731@stack.nl> <1080247208.2232.1095.camel@cube> <xzpr7vgf17a.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:43:21AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> writes: > > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 14:17, Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > I think that has been a historical mistake in the POSIX standardization. > > > tar/cpio were not standardized, instead a new utility "pax" was > > > invented. This should have been done with ps too [...] > > I would agree, except that nobody uses pax. :-) > > NetBSD and OpenBSD use pax exclusively; their tar and cpio are > symlinks to /bin/pax. How do they handle tar/cpio-specific arguments than? By bloating pax(1) with quite some piece of code? This seems odd. ./danfe
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040326143411.GA1508>