Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2018 13:12:18 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> To: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com> Cc: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org>, mike@karels.net, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ps output line length change Message-ID: <201802172112.w1HLCI2k069334@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <201802172106.w1HL6hP3045437@slippy.cwsent.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In message <1518882702.72050.204.camel@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore writes: > > 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? > > Sure. I'm ok even if there is no Linux compatibility. If we choose an > environment variable, I'm ok with any name as long as it makes sense. > > However Solaris had (I haven't used Solaris since Solaris 9) /usr/ucb > for BSD compatible utilities. Should we consider something similar for > linux compatibility? We already ahve the whole linuxlator thing, if they want a linux ps cant they just.. um actually use a linux ps from /compat/linux? I know ps grovels around in a lot of internals but this would, imho, be the route to persue a "linux compatible" ps output. -- Rod Grimes rgrimes@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201802172112.w1HLCI2k069334>