Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 07:03:45 +0530 From: "Kamal R. Prasad" <kamalp@kprasad.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu>, freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ps command Message-ID: <416F28F9.107@kprasad.org> In-Reply-To: <p0611042abd9463cf9290@[128.113.24.47]> References: <416EA82F.6060102@kprasad.org> <p0611042abd9463cf9290@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alright. It looks like you are taking care of it. Are there any other commands/utilities that need significant work for posix compliance? thanks -kamal Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 9:54 PM +0530 10/14/04, Kamal R. Prasad wrote: > >> >> I see that ps command needs a few additions to be compliant with >> IEEE 1003.1-2001 POSIX std. Please confirm if I can provide a >> patch that contains the following stuff:- >> >> -A, -e : write information about all processes >> -d : write information about all processes except session leaders >> -f : shows command line options , change this to show the fields >> UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME CMD >> -l : add the fields F, S >> -g : grouplist : Write information for processes whose session >> leaders are given in grouplist. The application shall ensure >> that the grouplist is a single argument in the form of a >> <blank> or comma-separated list. >> -G : grouplist : Write information for processes whose real group >> ID numbers are given in grouplist. The application shall >> ensure that the grouplist is a single argument in the form >> of a <blank> or comma-separated list. >> >> I'd appreciate info on who to send the patch to. > > > There is some extensive work done by Cyrille Lefevre, and which > was sent in as a PR. I have incorporated some of that work, and > plan to incorporate more of it. (although probably not in the > exact manner that Cyrille wrote it up). I also have a few updates > of my own for `ps', that I need to clean up and commit. I was > doing work in May and June. In July I got bogged down with some > other matters, and I have not gotten back to `ps' since then, but > I do intend to get back to it once 5.3-release is official. > > At least some of the changes are incompatible with our present `ps' > command, so we can't just throw them in and break the behavior that > FreeBSD users are used to. For instance, `-G' is already in our > version of `ps' which is in the 5.x-branch, due to work done earlier > this year. `-A' is also supported, but it is (deliberately) not > documented. The *code* for `-g' is also in our source, but it is > commented out because it conflicts with the historical definition > of `-g' (which has always been supported in FreeBSD, so many people > are used to typing it). >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?416F28F9.107>