Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2004 11:41:09 +0100 From: "Cyrille Lefevre" <cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net> To: "Garance A Drosihn" <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Albert Cahalan <albert@users.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: posix ps (was Re: Adding `pgrep' and `pkill' to /usr/bin) Message-ID: <1c0901c413e8$04a466c0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> References: <p0602046abc879c5fe2f9@[128.113.24.47]> <20040325070120.GA67497@VARK.homeunix.com> <1a9c01c41359$b3da45e0$7890a8c0@dyndns.org> <p06020494bc8a5738af2f@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Garance A Drosihn" <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > At 6:40 PM +0100 3/26/04, Cyrille Lefevre wrote: > > > >two years ago, I've added posix syntax and so to my locally > >ps(1). For instance, I'm currently adding the notion of > >dynamic personalities (the term comes from linux) instead > >of static #define such as... say : > > > >$ ps -X help > > any bsd bsd43reno bsd44 default extended freebsd hpux > > irix netbsd none openbsd pedantic posix relaxed solaris > > sunos susv3 tru64 > ...etc... > > >When finished, I'll probably submit these changes as a port, > >... since I suppose -arch will reject these important changes > >to a native command. > > I (personally) think that is overkill for a base-system command. > I do think that it is important for us to improve on what we > have for `ps, but that does not mean we immediately have to > rush out and re-implement every version of `ps' on the planet. not every version, but at least, the one w/ interesting options. my patch will follow w/o the enhanced personality part. could you take an eye on it before to commit your changes ? as I read your proposed changes, we could merge them w/o any problem. well, in fact, I already merge some of them (the or part instead of and). original ps : 26668 (no posix compliant) yours : 31072 (partly posix compliant) mine : 35684 (fully posix compliant) > You are suggesting that we go from being the least feature-full > and most-oddball `ps', to trying to match every `ps' along with > every subtle formatting-nuance of every system. With the changes at the beginning, it was not, but ... > that I just did, I went through a fair amount of trouble to make > sure that I was not increasing the size of `ps'. There are some > FreeBSD users who need to squeeze the OS onto very small file > systems, and I think that is a reasonable thing for our users > to want. I (personally) think that the size and complexity of > some all-encompassing `ps' is not worth the effort, and not worth > the PR's we will get over every feature does not *EXACTLY* match > how it behaves on the "original OS". > > I can see your `ps' being a very good option to have as a port, > and I might even install it in some situations, but I do not > think we want something that elaborate for a base-system command. > > >here are some sample outputs : > > > >$ PERSONALITY=freebsd ps -? > > Secondly, I personally am not fond of commands which COMPLETELY > change their behavior based on environment variables. Different > options, different formats, different rules. that's what other system does to avoid conflicts and for clarity. > If nothing else, writing the man page for that would be a real > nightmare, and I am no good at writing man pages... :-) not necesseraly, take a look on the tru64 manual pages. [snip] > I was going to write those up in reply to this message, but I > have a steady-stream of "emergency interruptions" (here at work) > today, and I'm supposed to be somewhere else right now, so I > guess my thoughts will wait until a later date. see you Cyrille Lefevre. -- home: mailto:cyrille.lefevre@laposte.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1c0901c413e8$04a466c0$7890a8c0>