From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Mar 20 16:39:13 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 D043B16A4D1 for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:39:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.server.rpi.edu (smtp3.server.rpi.edu [128.113.2.3]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 730CB43D1D for ; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 16:39:13 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from drosih@rpi.edu) Received: from [128.113.24.47] (gilead.netel.rpi.edu [128.113.24.47]) by smtp3.server.rpi.edu (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i2L0d9LP020344; Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:39:11 -0500 Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Sender: drosih@mail.rpi.edu Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:39:08 -0500 To: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?Q?Sm=F8rgrav?= ) From: Garance A Drosihn Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" ; format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Scanned-By: CanIt (www . canit . ca) 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: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:39:13 -0000 At 12:22 AM +0100 3/21/04, Dag-Erling Sm=F8rgrav wrote: >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'. Ah. I have solaris here, but never think to run /usr/ucb/ps. Interesting. So, the writeup in SUSv3 is at least somewhat confusing, if not wrong. When describing -A vs -a, it says: -a Write information for all processes associated with terminals. Implementations may omit session leaders from this list. -A Write information for all processes. And later it says: The -A option is equivalent to the BSD -g and the SVID -e. but that "BSD -g" does not *select* all processes, it just adds the appropriate session-leader processes to whatever you have selected via other options. So, that `-g' operates like `-x'. And the implementation of `-A' on solaris and linux indicates that they read the above the same way I did, which is to say that `-A' causes *every* process on the system to be displayed. And this does seem to be the same as "SVID -e". I'm not sure what to think about that, but it's interesting to make a note of it. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn =3D gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu