Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 00:22:45 +0100 From: des@des.no (Dag-Erling =?iso-8859-1?q?Sm=F8rgrav?=) To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Subject: Re: PATCH for a more-POSIX `ps', and related adventures Message-ID: <xzpn06bkssa.fsf@dwp.des.no> In-Reply-To: <p0602044abc8272610919@[128.113.24.47]> (Garance A. Drosihn's message of "Sat, 20 Mar 2004 17:21:29 -0500") References: <p06020448bc824de07ab9@[128.113.24.47]> <p0602044abc8272610919@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> 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'. I'm so used to it, I'll probably take your name in vain a couple of times after you commit your patch. Don't let that stop you, though :) > The SUSv3 standard describes an option `-U userlist': > Write information for processes whose real user ID numbers > or login names are given in userlist > We already have a `-u`, and I even use it, so I wasn't going to > steal that! However, I did want to have this ability, so I added > it as -R. I will assume this seems reasonable. What's the difference between the existing -U and the new -R? DES --=20 Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav - des@des.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?xzpn06bkssa.fsf>