On 23/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
