ps executable does not appear to match source

[Chris January]

On 23/01/2008, paul.hermeneutic@gmail.com <paul.hermeneutic@gmail.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/