From owner-freebsd-current Sat Jul 22 09:10:09 1995 Return-Path: current-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id JAA01003 for current-outgoing; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 09:10:09 -0700 Received: from who.cdrom.com (who.cdrom.com [192.216.222.3]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id JAA00993 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 09:10:08 -0700 Received: from irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de (irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de [141.76.1.11]) by who.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.11) with SMTP id IAA29105 for ; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 08:30:56 -0700 Received: from sax.sax.de by irz301.inf.tu-dresden.de with SMTP (5.67b+/DEC-Ultrix/4.3) id AA25259; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 17:13:20 +0200 Received: by sax.sax.de (8.6.12/8.6.12-s1) with UUCP id RAA00728 for current@freebsd.org; Sat, 22 Jul 1995 17:30:16 +0200 Received: (from j@localhost) by uriah.heep.sax.de (8.6.11/8.6.9) id MAA21429 for current@freebsd.org; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:47:00 +0200 From: J Wunsch Message-Id: <199507211047.MAA21429@uriah.heep.sax.de> Subject: Re: New options for lastcomm(1) To: current@freebsd.org Date: Fri, 21 Jul 1995 12:46:59 +0200 (MET DST) Reply-To: current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199507210926.CAA11990@gndrsh.aac.dev.com> from "Rodney W. Grimes" at Jul 21, 95 02:26:15 am Reply-To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de (Joerg Wunsch) X-Phone: +49-351-2012 669 X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Length: 868 Sender: current-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk As Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > The additions would make sense for me. > > Find someone running accounting to review your ``cleanedup'' diff > and I am all for addeded functionality to lastcomm as a 2 mintue > read of the current lastcomm man pages shows it to be seriously > lacking in functionality of just what data it can produce :-(. So who is running accounting? (Or can someone explain me in a nutshell what i'd have to setup? I'd try it myself, even though i cannot bill someone, it's at least interesting. ;-) I agree that the current lastcomm(1) doesn't seem to suffer from featuremania. Comparing to a SysV acctcom(1), even Wolfram's proposal ain't too much. But a good starting point to the very least. -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)