Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 02:25:04 +0400 From: Stanislav Sedov <stas@FreeBSD.org> To: Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Bruce Evans <brde@optusnet.com.au>, Garance A Drosehn <gad@FreeBSD.org>, svn-src-user@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r183781 - in user/edwin/top/top-3.8b1: contrib/top usr.bin/top Message-ID: <20081014022504.ccf76b6e.stas@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20081012221127.GB71466@mavetju.org> References: <200810120915.m9C9F5tq040143@svn.freebsd.org> <20081012142454.607c861d.stas@FreeBSD.org> <20081012103422.GA71466@mavetju.org> <p06240812c5180e4be02d@[128.113.24.47]> <20081012221127.GB71466@mavetju.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--Signature=_Tue__14_Oct_2008_02_25_04_+0400_hDFwSNW31/Do8n2r
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 09:11:27 +1100
Edwin Groothuis <edwin@mavetju.org> mentioned:
>=20
> Change only as in the parameter, not as in the feature.
>=20
> It's going to be -c now because -a has been used by the original top for:
>=20
> -a, --all
> Show all processes for as long as possible. This is
> shorthand for "-d all all". This option is especially
> handy in batch mode.
>=20
I think the new '-a' option is going to be used less frequent, then
FreeBSD one. Do you understand that by changing it you are forcing
FreeBSD users (not other system's users) to use something like this
in scrips:
----------------------------------------------------------------
if ( `sysctl kern.osreldate` > XXXXXX ) then
opt =3D "-c"
else
opt =3D '-a'
endif
top ${opt} ...
----------------------------------------------------------------
This is clearly a POLA violation and I really don't understand what
we are trading it for. The most attractive thing in FreeBSD for most
users is that we're truing to be as compatible with pervios revisions
as possible. You're now trying to ruin that for nothing in exchange.
I was asking you what other systems use this version of top in base:
have you done this research? I think this at least might be asked
at mailinglist what communinity will prefer - to keep the FreeBSD
compatibility or the upstream compatibility. Not speaking of there's
a good chance we may switch to other top verion in future.
We can provide unmodified version of top in ports system - this is
what that systems was done for. So users who really want the unixtop
compatibility can get it there. I really don't understand why you've
selected that specific top version as standard - why not try to be
compatible with e.g. atop instead?
I think this should be thinked around better.
--=20
Stanislav Sedov
ST4096-RIPE
--Signature=_Tue__14_Oct_2008_02_25_04_+0400_hDFwSNW31/Do8n2r
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (FreeBSD)
iEYEARECAAYFAkjzysAACgkQK/VZk+smlYHM9gCfY9tCySqGZfbl8vD2x2nFLbk3
JPkAn3Fw5DNd7uF0yxVIhgP8NJl9lVRo
=Opz6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--Signature=_Tue__14_Oct_2008_02_25_04_+0400_hDFwSNW31/Do8n2r--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20081014022504.ccf76b6e.stas>