In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Tito) wrote: > Hi, > Doesn't ps scan /proc? > If it is not mounted nor busybox ps nor a script nor real ps would > work. > I would scan /proc myself to be sure the ouput is formatted the way > I like it. > > Just my 2 cents. > Ciao, > Tito
Tito, I dunno :-) I have just heard that on some Linux machines there's an issue with reading /proc - either it doesn't exist or isn't accessible to apps. I've just written ps.sh which pokes around in proc and dumps pid, stat and cmd line. It will work on any of the machines I'm currently looking at. On the main subject, I'm coming to the conclusion that if I want to have 100 scripts plus some C programs which do system() a lot.... I need to include a 'known' version of busybox for them all to use in my distribution, not to rely on whatever is lying about on the Linux computer I try to install on. D _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
