On 23/01/2008, Corinna Vinschen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Jan 23 09:34, Chris January wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Care to implement it? You basic
Chris January wrote:
> 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.
Agree.
> To support scripts that rely on the format and options of the old
> Cygwin ps we could add a new 'Cygwin' pe
On Jan 23 09:34, Chris January wrote:
> 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.
Care to implement it? You basically wrote the /proc stuff in Cygwin
anyway.
Corinna
--
Corinna Vi
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
>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
On Sat, Jan 19, 2008 at 09:31:25PM -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> ps from Cygwin is the historically older version, it's using another
>> mechanism to get to all the date and, last but not least, it's a core
>> Cygwin tool under the Cygwin license. Feel free to use procps as ps
>> by aliasing,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
According to [EMAIL PROTECTED] on 1/19/2008 8:31 PM:
| While aliasing does work for interactive and shell scripts, it does
| not work for Perl backtick expressions.
Why not just do:
echo exec procps "$@" > /usr/local/bin/ps
Then, as long as /usr/lo
> ps from Cygwin is the historically older version, it's using another
> mechanism to get to all the date and, last but not least, it's a core
> Cygwin tool under the Cygwin license. Feel free to use procps as ps
> by aliasing, but Cygwin's ps will not go away and it can't use procps
> sources for
On Jan 18 08:16, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 2008 9:38 PM, <> wrote:
> > > The ps that comes with Cygwin is missing a number of features that
> > > appear to be in the procps-3.2.7/ps/ source code. The source code
> > > does not look like it was used to build the executable. Is this
> On Jan 17, 2008 9:38 PM, <> wrote:
> > The ps that comes with Cygwin is missing a number of features that
> > appear to be in the procps-3.2.7/ps/ source code. The source code
> > does not look like it was used to build the executable. Is this
> > correct?
>
> Cygwin has both ps and procps ava
On Jan 17, 2008 9:38 PM, <> wrote:
> The ps that comes with Cygwin is missing a number of features that
> appear to be in the procps-3.2.7/ps/ source code. The source code
> does not look like it was used to build the executable. Is this
> correct?
Cygwin has both ps and procps available. The
The ps that comes with Cygwin is missing a number of features that
appear to be in the procps-3.2.7/ps/ source code. The source code
does not look like it was used to build the executable. Is this
correct?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
The ps that comes with Cygwin is missing a number of features that
appear to be in the procps-3.2.7/ps/ source code. The source code
does not look like it was used to build the executable. Is this
correct?
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:
13 matches
Mail list logo
