1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
|
--- ./ps/parser.c.orig 2004-08-09 17:41:10.000000000 -0700
+++ ./ps/parser.c 2004-08-16 18:30:09.000000000 -0700
@@ -1213,12 +1213,20 @@
// about "ps -aux" suddenly changing behavior if a user "x" were
// added to the system.
//
+ // Yes, this is still getting patched out here. IMO, people can change
+ // old habits if and when user 'x' comes along. I still find this warning
+ // to be a POLA violation. No offense... that's the beauty of open source.
+ // You've got your ideas about this, and I have mine, and we're allowed
+ // to disagree. Nothing in the UNIX or POSIX standards requires this (annoying)
+ // warning to be displayed, and we're not changing the actual behavior
+ // of ps in any way. I know of no other 'ps' that produces this message.
+ //
// Also, a "-x" option is coming. It's already there in fact,
// for some non-default personalities. So "ps -ax" will parse
// as SysV options... and you're screwed if you've been patching
// out the friendly warning. Cut-over is likely to be in 2005.
- if(!(personality & PER_FORCE_BSD))
- fprintf(stderr, "Warning: bad ps syntax, perhaps a bogus '-'? See http://procps.sf.net/faq.html\n");
+ // if(!(personality & PER_FORCE_BSD))
+ // fprintf(stderr, "Warning: bad ps syntax, perhaps a bogus '-'? See http://procps.sf.net/faq.html\n");
// Remember: contact albert@users.sf.net or procps-feedback@lists.sf.net
// if you should feel tempted. Be damn sure you understand all
// the issues. The same goes for other stuff too, BTW. Please ask.
|
