From owner-freebsd-hackers Wed Feb 19 12:59:45 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id MAA18511 for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:59:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from anacreon.sol.net (anacreon.sol.net [206.55.64.116]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA18504 for ; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:59:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from solaria.sol.net (solaria.sol.net [206.55.65.75]) by anacreon.sol.net (8.8.5/8.6.12) with SMTP id OAA12073; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:59:35 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost by solaria.sol.net (8.5/8.5) id OAA07005; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 14:59:33 -0600 From: Joe Greco Message-Id: <199702192059.OAA07005@solaria.sol.net> Subject: Re: ports/2756: top causes segmentation fault To: joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 14:59:31 CST Cc: wosch@campa.panke.de.cs.tu-berlin.de, freebsd-ports@freefall.freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: from "J Wunsch" at Feb 19, 97 08:14:21 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4dev PL65] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > As Wolfram Schneider wrote: > > > > Recompile top. top is very system-dependant, and since you're running > > > a SNAP, your first aid should be recompilation. > > > > > > top should probably live in the base system, not in ports. I've > > > already removed /usr/local/bin/top on my machines at work since > > > /usr/local is shared, but top is by no means sharable at all. > > > > Yes, we should import top(1) into the base system (src/contrib/top). > > The top sources are only 120KB. > > Are there any contradictionary opinions? Even Suns ship with top(1) > by default, and given its deep internal knowledge of the kernel > structures, the ports version is pretty useless for a machine that is > tracking -current (or even one that is upgraded by the official > releases when forgetting to always upgrade to the most recent version > of top as well). Suns do not...! (At least, not as of SunOS 5.5.1) It is on my list of things that get installed on _every_ system. systat is nice, but the pigs display gives very little useful information compared to top (OTOH, systat can monitor lots of useful things, top can't). I can't actually think of any practical advantage of systat's pigs display :-) I think it would be a functional addition and would not object, although it is bloat in the general sense. ... Joe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Joe Greco - Systems Administrator jgreco@ns.sol.net Solaria Public Access UNIX - Milwaukee, WI 414/342-4847