From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jun 11 7:37:35 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from axl.seasidesoftware.co.za (axl.seasidesoftware.co.za [196.31.7.201]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6DC3337B40A; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:37:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sheldonh (helo=axl.seasidesoftware.co.za) by axl.seasidesoftware.co.za with local-esmtp (Exim 3.36 #1) id 17Hmmb-0000El-00; Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:38:05 +0200 From: Sheldon Hearn To: Juli Mallett Cc: Andrew Kenneth Milton , current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Looking for comments on a new utility... In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:29:56 MST." <20020611072956.A6437@FreeBSD.ORG> Date: Tue, 11 Jun 2002 16:38:05 +0200 Message-ID: <914.1023806285@axl.seasidesoftware.co.za> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 07:29:56 MST, Juli Mallett wrote: > > I don't think you should worry too much about _not_ getting > > reasonable output from POSIX-conformant utilities. :-) > > I'd read SUS's ps(1) escription a little closer. Very few guarantees > with it. My POSIX.2 (1993) suggests that you can get a sufficient level of regularity out of ps(1) to provide reliable input for a tree printer. I think the "5.23.6.1 Standard Output" section defines the impact of the format specified with the -o option "well enough". I haven't looked at what SUS has to say about the issue, but if it's more ambiguous, then it's a regression from POSIX.2 (1993) and should be corrected. :-) Ciao, Sheldon. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message