Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 00:45:14 -0500 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures Message-ID: <p06020476bc8818ec1455@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <1080183274.2233.984.camel@cube> References: <1080165171.2232.910.camel@cube> <p0602046ebc87c97b75b3@[128.113.24.47]> <1080183274.2233.984.camel@cube>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
At 9:54 PM -0500 3/24/04, Albert Cahalan wrote: >On Wed, 2004-03-24, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > >> >You've added both "A" and "-A", right? That is, you're still >> >not using the presense/absense of a "-" to provide for separate >> >BSD and UNIX switch namespaces. >> >> Apparently I have. 'ps A' and 'ps -A' seem to do the same >> thing for me. > >BTW, no real UNIX user ever uses -A. The -e option is used. >The -A is a bit of crud some POSIX committee dreamed up. We already have a -e, so I can't just add that. It shouldn't hurt us to add -A, and it'll prevent me from adding something else as -A at a later date... :-) > > ... But my intention is to add the SUSv3-ish version of `-g' > > fairly soon. ... Of the FreeBSD users who responded, the > > feeling has been "I'd rather have this SUSv3 option added > > than stick with the null-option". > >This is not a 2-way choice. > >1. null-option for a bit of SunOS 4 script compatibility >2. SUSv3 "-g", plus accepting "g" alone as an alias >3. SUSv3 "-g", plus "g" for SunOS 4 script compatibility > >If you choose #2 now, you'll have forever lost compatibility >with SunOS 4. I'll see what other FreeBSD'ers think about this. I have no SunOS 4 machines to worry about, and I have never used "g" on Linux. I'd rather make a clean break and just do what the standard says. > > Note that we already have a `-u' option... I notice that > > you're talking as if '-option' and 'option' are different > > namespaces. This is not true on FreeBSD. If we have a > > '-u', then we also have a 'u' which means the exact same > > thing. > >Yes, I know. This is why "ps -ef" won't work for you. >AIX, Tru64, and Linux all split the namespaces to >solve this problem. Join the crowd! :-) Again. This is a side-project I'm doing. I can't afford to devote a lot of time to `ps'. If I try to split the namespace, then the task of merely rewriting the man page will take more time than I intend to spend on this. ENOTIME. (not right now, at least). I might hold off on `-g' for awhile to see if I find some time to consider a namespace split. I'm not too optimistic though. Note that whatever the historical (BSD) background might be, our man page actually describes all options as `-x', and not 'x'. > > >> Adds a `-s sidlist' option, which is not in SUSv3, > > >> but it is in solaris, linux, and irix ... > > > >> >What about the traditional BSD signals format? I know NetBSD >> >broke this... you too? It is valuable when debugging. >> >> I don't know what you are referring to. FreeBSD's `ps' did not >> have any `-s' option, so adding this option does not conflict >> with anything we presently have... >> >> Hrm. I see that NetBSD does have some `-s' option, although at >> least OpenBSD does not. I forgot to check for that before. I >> am still inclined to add the sidlist-s option to FreeBSD's `ps'. > >Wow. Real BSD is dead. The "s" option prints signal info. I'll add the `-s' option for sidlist. If we later split the namespace, we can use a `s' option for signal info, if that is appropriate. > > So, given a little time you might be able talk me into using >> environment vars to clean this up, but at the moment: ENOTIME... >> >> We could perhaps tackle this for 6.x-branch (coming soon!), and >> then think about moving the result to `ps' in 5.x-stable if that >> result is reasonably backwards-compatible. > >You could always do this for the die-hards: ENOTIME means ENOTIME. It does not mean "tell me extra scripts I could write on top of extra coding I could do". >Got anything against long options? I use these: > >--Group select by real group name or ID >--User select by real user name or ID >--group select by effective group name or ID >--user select by effective user name or ID BSD commands rarely (almost never?) have long options. I personally don't mind them much, but, well, ENOTIME. >Anyway, the "-X" or "X" idea is what??? You want to force >enable the must-have-tty filter that "-x" or a SUSv3 option >would disable? This is of very limited use I think. What >would happen with both X and x at the same time? Like most "turn on" vs "turn off" options: the last one wins. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.eduhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p06020476bc8818ec1455>