From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 20 15:22:54 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5BDA116A4CE for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:22:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp.des.no (flood.des.no [217.116.83.31]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1857043D2D for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 15:22:54 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from des@des.no) Received: by smtp.des.no (Pony Express, from userid 666) id 001155309; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:22:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from dwp.des.no (des.no [80.203.228.37]) by smtp.des.no (Pony Express) with ESMTP id 346FE5308; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:22:46 +0100 (CET) Received: by dwp.des.no (Postfix, from userid 2602) id 84C0E33C6C; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:22:45 +0100 (CET) To: Garance A Drosihn References: From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:22:45 +0100 In-Reply-To: (Garance A. Drosihn's message of "Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:21:29 -0500") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.090024 (Oort Gnus v0.24) Emacs/21.3 (berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on flood.des.no X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.63 cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 23:22:54 -0000 Garance A Drosihn writes: > So, what BSD had a `-g' option which behaved like `-A'? SunOS, at least. In Solaris, there is still a difference between '/usr/ucb/ps uxw' and '/usr/ucb/ps guxw'. I'm so used to it, I'll probably take your name in vain a couple of times after you commit your patch. Don't let that stop you, though :) > The SUSv3 standard describes an option `-U userlist': > Write information for processes whose real user ID numbers > or login names are given in userlist > We already have a `-u`, and I even use it, so I wasn't going to > steal that! However, I did want to have this ability, so I added > it as -R. I will assume this seems reasonable. What's the difference between the existing -U and the new -R? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no