Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 14:17:01 +0000 From: Edward Napierala <trasz@freebsd.org> To: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> Cc: Cy Schubert <Cy.Schubert@cschubert.com>, arch@freebsd.org, mike@karels.net, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ps output line length change Message-ID: <CAFLM3-qaQq=aLZhDs5GCJkzyQrGSYfJV%2BXU0R1nkON83e0yErw@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <201802172112.w1HLCI2k069334@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> References: <201802172106.w1HL6hP3045437@slippy.cwsent.com> <201802172112.w1HLCI2k069334@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2018-02-17 21:12 GMT+00:00 Rodney W. Grimes < freebsd-rwg@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net>: > > 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. > Or install sysutils/coreutils and use the gls(1) - GNU version of ls(1), the same that's used with Linux - built as a native FreeBSD binary.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAFLM3-qaQq=aLZhDs5GCJkzyQrGSYfJV%2BXU0R1nkON83e0yErw>