X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <2ce9650b0801230134n26c41524y7649837692dff7ff@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 09:34:55 +0000
From: "Chris January" <chris AT atomice DOT net>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: ps executable does not appear to match source
In-Reply-To: <4a89b8680801222033y6dad8c6dw31f71e10896117c5@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4a89b8680801222033y6dad8c6dw31f71e10896117c5 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 9fc46cb9c8b49c61
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On 23/01/2008, paul DOT hermeneutic AT gmail DOT com <paul DOT hermeneutic AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> >That said, however, the other way of dealing with this is to modify
> >procps to deal with Windows pids.  Then we wouldn't need the cygwin ps.
> >If you want to provide a patch to do that, then it's likely that the
> >procps maintainer would accept it -- assuming that it isn't so intrusive
> >as to cause an ongoing maintenance problem.

I would rather see a patch that added Windows pids to /proc than only
to procps. Then the functionality would be available to other
programs, like top.

> >If procps can be made to do all of the things that ps now does then
> >there would be no reason to keep ps around.
>
> I am interested.  However, I would want to ensure from the beginning
> the it is possible to achieve.  Would Cygwin accept a ps that did not
> produce identically formatted output for each option of the
> historically older version?  What about all those people who have
> crafted their shell or Perl or Python code to interpret the output of
> the historically older version?

To support scripts that rely on the format and options of the old
Cygwin ps we could add a new 'Cygwin' personality to procps.

Cheers,
Chris

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/