Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> Kyle McDonald wrote:
>
>> But since /usr/ucb/ps currently takes 'aux' or '-aux' (for example) then
>> if invoked as /usr/ucb/ps, or found through PATH=/usr/ucb:..., then I
>> think it's correct to continue the /usr/ucb behavior.
>>
>
> This could be as simple as
Kyle McDonald wrote:
> But since /usr/ucb/ps currently takes 'aux' or '-aux' (for example) then
> if invoked as /usr/ucb/ps, or found through PATH=/usr/ucb:..., then I
> think it's correct to continue the /usr/ucb behavior.
This could be as simple as borrowing the PS_PERSONALITY variable from
GN
>> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
>> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>>
>> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
>>
>> Because it has been bothering me I'd like to fix this and so I'd like to
>> ask
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:40 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Peter Tribble wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> But since /usr/ucb/ps currently takes 'aux' or '-aux' (for example) then
> >> if invoked as /usr/ucb/ps, or f
> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>
> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
>
> Because it has been bothering me I'd like to fix this and so I'd like to
> ask some ad
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> But if you type /usr/ucb/ps or /usr/bin/ps, what do you expect?
>>
>> Or PATH=/usr/ucb:$PATH ps
>> vs
>>PATH=/usr/bin:$PATH ps
>
>If arguments start with a -, be /usr/bin/ps; otherwise be
>/usr/ucb/ps, in all cases.
Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> But since /usr/ucb/ps currently takes 'aux' or '-aux' (for example) then
>> if invoked as /usr/ucb/ps, or found through PATH=/usr/ucb:..., then I
>> think it's correct to continue the /usr/uc
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:30 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But if you type /usr/ucb/ps or /usr/bin/ps, what do you expect?
>
> Or PATH=/usr/ucb:$PATH ps
> vs
>PATH=/usr/bin:$PATH ps
If arguments start with a -, be /usr/bin/ps; otherwise be
/usr/ucb/ps, in all cases.
(This is h
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:33 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> But since /usr/ucb/ps currently takes 'aux' or '-aux' (for example) then
> if invoked as /usr/ucb/ps, or found through PATH=/usr/ucb:..., then I
> think it's correct to continue the /usr/ucb behavior.
Well, I'm one of
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> "Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>> The simple plan is this:
>>>
>>> - if called with an argument which does not start with "-",
>>> be /usr/ucb/ps
>>> - if called with an argument starting with "-" behave like ucb ps
>>>
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >
>> I'm not sure, but I read this as:
>>
>> if argv[0]="/usr/ucb/ps" then interpret the args the ucb way even if
>> there is a -.
>>
>> That doesn't sound bad to me. If people put that in their path that's
>> pr
>
>> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 15 11:05:28 2008
>> >
>> >The other question would be - which output do you get with no
>> >arguments at all?
>>
>> The same as currently, depending on $PATH. I'm not sure what other
>> compatible options there are.
>
>Are you parsing $PATH when argv[0]=="ps"
"Peter Tribble" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The simple plan is this:
> >
> > - if called with an argument which does not start with "-",
> > be /usr/ucb/ps
> > - if called with an argument starting with "-" behave like ucb ps
> > or bin/ps depending on how t
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Kyle McDonald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> I'm not sure, but I read this as:
>
> if argv[0]="/usr/ucb/ps" then interpret the args the ucb way even if
> there is a -.
>
> That doesn't sound bad to me. If people put that in their path that's
> probably what
> From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fri Feb 15 11:05:28 2008
> >
> >The other question would be - which output do you get with no
> >arguments at all?
>
> The same as currently, depending on $PATH. I'm not sure what other
> compatible options there are.
Are you parsing $PATH when argv[0]=="ps"?
>I'm not sure, but I read this as:
>
>if argv[0]="/usr/ucb/ps" then interpret the args the ucb way even if
>there is a -.
Correct.
>That doesn't sound bad to me. If people put that in their path that's
>probably what they expect.
That was my thinking too.
Casper
___
>On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
>> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>>
>> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
>>
>> Because
Peter Tribble wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
>> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>>
>> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations a
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 1:55 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>
> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
>
> Because it has be
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 8:31 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Way overboard", I'd say.
Sorry, I should have been clearer.
> Or is there really much interest in all other output flavors?
I was only listing it as a point of comparison to show how another
variant of ps handled syntax compatibil
> ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES
> The following environment variables could affect ps:
>
> COLUMNS Override default display width
> LINESOverride default display height
> PS_PERSONALITY Set to one of posix,old,linux,bsd,sun,digital
> CMD_
On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 7:55 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
> you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
>
> And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
>
> Because it has be
Currently Solaris has two distinct versions of ps; to use one or the other
you need to either give the full path or change $PATH.
And that while a little bit of code could tell most invocations apart.
Because it has been bothering me I'd like to fix this and so I'd like to
ask some advice.
Mer
23 matches
Mail list logo
