Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:27:58 -0400 From: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> To: "Cyrille Lefevre" <clefevre-lists@9online.fr>, <arch@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Change to "kludge option processing" in /bin/ps Message-ID: <p0602045ebcf0d0336fe7@[128.113.24.47]> In-Reply-To: <038901c45085$a08bde90$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <200406041933.i54JX9kj040764@mail.gits.dyndns.org> <p0602042fbce693792f92@[128.113.24.47]> <p0602044ebced3d3afbd0@[128.113.24.47]> <038901c45085$a08bde90$7890a8c0@dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 4:00 PM +0200 6/12/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > So, `ps -G ,nobody,' is a list with three elements, two of which >> are null. Null elements are an error. So, you get two error >> messages. As I sit here right now, I still think that is the >> correct and reasonable behavior, so I have no plans to change it. > >think about not well formed shell script. it isn't necessary to >display an error message like this, more important, ps should not >stop on such error, al least, it should display process info for >non- empty elements. however, it's far better than to believe ,, >means 0 :) imagine something like : ps -o pid= ,, | xargs kill If `ps -p ,' is an error instead of process zero (which is a change that I just made after you pointed it out to me), then `ps -p 1,' is also an error. I *am* thinking about shell-scripts which are not well-formed. My thought is that I should not be second-guessing what the script-writer "probably meant". If they can't get the right parameters to `ps', then `ps' should treat that as an error. So, I still have no plans to change this behavior. The behavior that is there is, I believe, both correct and reasonable -- even if other OS's do it some other way. -- Garance Alistair Drosehn = gad@gilead.netel.rpi.edu Senior Systems Programmer or gad@freebsd.org Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute or drosih@rpi.edu
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?p0602045ebcf0d0336fe7>