On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 16:31:32 +
Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200
> Benny Lofgren wrote:
>
> > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been
> > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid
> > I'm killing too *much*..
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 10:41:16 -0500
Chris Bennett wrote:
> I would like a verbose option where I can be notified if nothing matched.
/usr/bin/pgrep asxbabsjkcnjklcneo || /bin/echo "Nout matched"
On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 04:31:32PM +, Kevin Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200
> Benny Lofgren wrote:
>
> > Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been
> > concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid
> > I'm killing too *m
On Sun, 12 Jun 2011 00:15:58 +0200
Benny Lofgren wrote:
> Me personally, I'm scared as hell using pkill at all. I've never been
> concerned with not killing *enough*, it's almost always that I'm afraid
> I'm killing too *much*...
Most of the time, the regex matching makes it usable. I'd rather se
2011/6/12 Philip Guenther
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst
> wrote:
> > Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm
> > each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled
> > after rm.
>
> "Confirm each kill"? Ah, that's the option to follo
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 07:33:51PM -0700, Philip Guenther wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> > Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm
> > each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled
> > after rm.
>
> "Confirm each k
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 7:19 PM, Ted Unangst wrote:
> Funny enough, when pkill was first added I added an option to confirm
> each kill. Guess what letter it used? That's right, -i, modeled
> after rm.
"Confirm each kill"? Ah, that's the option to follow up each kill
with a SIGKILL between the
On Sat, Jun 11, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Benny Lofgren wrote:
>> Hmmm. Two of (arguably) the four best known BSD distributions have it.
>> The idea of -i meaning case insensitivity is there already in other (1)
>> commands, so I'd say it makes sense to add.
>>
>> From a practical standpoint, I'm all for
Wrong thread :(
On 11 June 2011 19:24, Christiano F. Haesbaert wrote:
> The cleaner sometimes accidentaly pushes the power button of one of my
> machines.
>
> So +1.
The cleaner sometimes accidentaly pushes the power button of one of my machines.
So +1.
On 2011-06-11 23.07, STeve Andre' wrote:
>> NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@).
>> FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later.
>> procps.cvs.sourceforge.net (used e.g. in Debian) does not have -i.
>> OpenSolaris does not have -i.
>>
>> So I'd say we shouldn't add it.
>>
>>
On 06/11/11 16:44, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
Hi,
Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100:
Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it.
NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@).
FreeBSD copied it from
* On 2011-06-11 at 21:44 BST, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100:
>
> > Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
>
> It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it.
>
> NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@).
Ri
Hi,
Jonathan Perkin wrote on Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:02:05PM +0100:
> Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
It seems nobody picked this up, so i had a look at it.
NetBSD has that since March 2005 (committed by sketch@).
FreeBSD copied it from NetBSD a few days later.
procps.cvs.sourc
Add -i to ignore case when matching process name
Index: pkill.1
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/pkill/pkill.1,v
retrieving revision 1.16
diff -u -r1.16 pkill.1
--- pkill.1 29 Sep 2010 07:44:56 - 1.16
+++ pkill.1 17 May
15 matches
Mail list logo
