ps command
Kamal R. Prasad
kamalp at kprasad.org
Thu Oct 14 18:34:12 PDT 2004
Alright. It looks like you are taking care of it. Are there any other
commands/utilities that need significant work for posix compliance?
thanks
-kamal
Garance A Drosihn wrote:
> At 9:54 PM +0530 10/14/04, Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
>
>>
>> I see that ps command needs a few additions to be compliant with
>> IEEE 1003.1-2001 POSIX std. Please confirm if I can provide a
>> patch that contains the following stuff:-
>>
>> -A, -e : write information about all processes
>> -d : write information about all processes except session leaders
>> -f : shows command line options , change this to show the fields
>> UID PID PPID C STIME TTY TIME CMD
>> -l : add the fields F, S
>> -g : grouplist : Write information for processes whose session
>> leaders are given in grouplist. The application shall ensure
>> that the grouplist is a single argument in the form of a
>> <blank> or comma-separated list.
>> -G : grouplist : Write information for processes whose real group
>> ID numbers are given in grouplist. The application shall
>> ensure that the grouplist is a single argument in the form
>> of a <blank> or comma-separated list.
>>
>> I'd appreciate info on who to send the patch to.
>
>
> There is some extensive work done by Cyrille Lefevre, and which
> was sent in as a PR. I have incorporated some of that work, and
> plan to incorporate more of it. (although probably not in the
> exact manner that Cyrille wrote it up). I also have a few updates
> of my own for `ps', that I need to clean up and commit. I was
> doing work in May and June. In July I got bogged down with some
> other matters, and I have not gotten back to `ps' since then, but
> I do intend to get back to it once 5.3-release is official.
>
> At least some of the changes are incompatible with our present `ps'
> command, so we can't just throw them in and break the behavior that
> FreeBSD users are used to. For instance, `-G' is already in our
> version of `ps' which is in the 5.x-branch, due to work done earlier
> this year. `-A' is also supported, but it is (deliberately) not
> documented. The *code* for `-g' is also in our source, but it is
> commented out because it conflicts with the historical definition
> of `-g' (which has always been supported in FreeBSD, so many people
> are used to typing it).
>
More information about the freebsd-standards
mailing list