Ed Cogburn wrote:
>
>
> Ok, I'll get ps compiled with debugging info and try again.
> I'll get back to ya. (This oughta be fun....)
Well, not as much fun as I thought. I downloaded the procps source
from debian woody (plus diff). I modified the Makefiles to remove "-O2"
and add "-ggdb -static" and compiled the proc library and ps, and ran
it. No errors?!? Went back and used the original makefiles and
compiled. Same thing, no sig11. I then ran the make in the main
directory to create everything so I could try the "oldps" program. Same
thing, no sig11 anywhere. But the binary 'ps' from woody is still
giving me a sig11. I thought the source + diff should produce a binary
identical to the one in the main tree of woody, or at least identical in
functionality, yet the 'ps' I compiled uses a different output format
(spacing between columns), so its output doesn't even print out the same
as the binary ps's output (data is the same, just the format is
different). ???
Now that I removed console-apt, because it was giving me so much
trouble, and went back to dselect+apt, I'm not getting a sig11 from
anywhere else, so at least this is something I can easily live with if
it comes to that, but why are these two ps binaries acting
differently???
Sincerely, Confused.
--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. -- Voltaire
