[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-11-09 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
Since the basic issue is understood in bash vs gnu kill implementation IMHO there is no reason to carry an Ubuntu delta just for that. I still want it properly fixed one day, and not just explained. As far as it looks right now this seems to become part of bash 4.4. Which means this bug will sta

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-11-02 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
I dropped the merge proposal for wily since it would even be a SRU now. I'll follow up on the upstreaming of bash which in the meantime made it to the archive at https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-bash/2015-10/msg4.html -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of U

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-11-02 Thread Robie Basak
I also think this is low priority in Ubuntu as it isn't worth adding a delta over. It can be sent and addressed upstream, and we'll carry the fix in Ubuntu when it arrives. ** Package changed: procps (Ubuntu) => bash (Ubuntu) ** Changed in: bash (Ubuntu) Importance: High => Low ** Changed in:

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-11-02 Thread Robie Basak
(I understand that if procps' documentation did not match behaviour that would certainly be more important, but it turns out that it's really just a mismatch between bash's builtin and procps' documentation and behaviour, which is certainly a papercut level UX issue but not so obviously a bug) --

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-11-02 Thread Robie Basak
Christian has explained to me that the fix would be in the bash builtin, not in procps. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1488939 Title: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?) T

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread Ubuntu Foundations Team Bug Bot
The attachment "Add -L option to bash builtin of kill to be more compatible to procps version of kill (proper formatting)" seems to be a patch. If it isn't, please remove the "patch" flag from the attachment, remove the "patch" tag, and if you are a member of the ~ubuntu- reviewers, unsubscribe th

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
I proposed a merge including my fix for further review (https://code.launchpad.net/~paelzer/ubuntu/wily/bash/fix- for-1488939/+merge/272916) and also started a discussion at bug- b...@gnu.org to get their feedback regarding changing options. I will add a link to the thread once it shows up in the a

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
** Patch removed: "Add -L option to bash builtin of kill to be more compatible to procps version of kill" https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/1488939/+attachment/4479983/+files/bash-make-kill-more-procops-compatible.patch ** Patch added: "Add -L option to bash builtin of kill to

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
** Patch added: "Add -L option to bash builtin of kill to be more compatible to procps version of kill" https://bugs.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/1488939/+attachment/4479983/+files/bash-make-kill-more-procops-compatible.patch -- You received this bug notification because you are a mem

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
The parameter parsing for the bash builtins is based on this: #define ISOPTION(s, c) (s[0] == '-' && !s[2] && s[1] == c) In addition the -- is used to recognize negative numbers to signify process groups instead of just a process. This is rather unusable for lonopts, but at least the -L could

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
>From the procps man page: The -L flag is Linux-specific. Also I would expect that the long options might be special or new, so I'm not sure how willing bash will be to take a modification for this. BTW - these are the allowed parameters from the bash Doc Options: -s sigSIG is a signa

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-09-30 Thread ChristianEhrhardt
I wanted to fix it in the procps package where kill belongs to. But there everything is ok, like: .libs/kill -l HUP INT QUIT ILL TRAP ABRT BUS FPE KILL USR1 SEGV USR2 PIPE ALRM TERM STKFLT CHLD CONT STOP TSTP TTIN TTOU URG XCPU XFSZ VTALRM PROF WINCH POLL PWR SYS .libs/kill --list HUP INT QUIT I

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-08-27 Thread Alberto Salvia Novella
** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided => High ** Also affects: hundredpapercuts Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Changed in: hundredpapercuts Status: New => Confirmed ** Changed in: hundredpapercuts Importance: Undecided => High -- You received this bu

[Bug 1488939] Re: kill -L behaviour (is it a doc or code error?)

2015-08-26 Thread Hans Joachim Desserud
Thanks for reporting this issue. I cannot really answer your question, but I see the same behaviour with procps 1:3.3.9-1ubuntu8 on Ubuntu 15.04 ** Changed in: procps (Ubuntu) Status: New => Confirmed ** Tags added: manpage vivid -- You received this bug notification because you are a m