Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 26 Mar 2004 20:34:11 +0600
From:      Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@nsu.ru>
To:        Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav <des@des.no>
Cc:        drosih@rpi.edu
Subject:   Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures
Message-ID:  <20040326143411.GA1508@regency.nsu.ru>
In-Reply-To: <xzpr7vgf17a.fsf@dwp.des.no>
References:  <1080165171.2232.910.camel@cube> <20040325191745.GB71731@stack.nl> <1080247208.2232.1095.camel@cube> <xzpr7vgf17a.fsf@dwp.des.no>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Mar 26, 2004 at 09:43:21AM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote:
> Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sf.net> writes:
> > On Thu, 2004-03-25 at 14:17, Jilles Tjoelker wrote:
> > > I think that has been a historical mistake in the POSIX standardization.
> > > tar/cpio were not standardized, instead a new utility "pax" was
> > > invented. This should have been done with ps too [...]
> > I would agree, except that nobody uses pax. :-)
> 
> NetBSD and OpenBSD use pax exclusively; their tar and cpio are
> symlinks to /bin/pax.

How do they handle tar/cpio-specific arguments than?  By bloating pax(1)
with quite some piece of code?  This seems odd.

./danfe



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040326143411.GA1508>