On Tue 21 Feb 2023 at 16:06:48 (+0100), Andreas Leha wrote:
> David Wright writes:
> > On Mon 20 Feb 2023 at 10:39:21 (+0100), Andreas Leha wrote:
> >> Greg Wooledge writes:
> >> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:04:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >> >> But even that's not enough
> >> >> because the
David Wright writes:
> On Mon 20 Feb 2023 at 10:39:21 (+0100), Andreas Leha wrote:
>> Greg Wooledge writes:
>> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:04:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>> >> But even that's not enough
>> >> because the field width is somewhat variable: try ps -eo '%c | %z |
>> >> %
On Mon 20 Feb 2023 at 10:39:21 (+0100), Andreas Leha wrote:
> Greg Wooledge writes:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:04:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> >> But even that's not enough
> >> because the field width is somewhat variable: try ps -eo '%c | %z |
> >> %a'
> >> (We can still use | to
Greg Wooledge writes:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:04:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
>> But even that's not enough
>> because the field width is somewhat variable: try ps -eo '%c | %z | %a'
>> (We can still use | to make the problem somewhat more obvious.)
>
> Oh wow. Yeah, OK, that's not
Reco writes:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:46:23AM +0100, Andreas Leha wrote:
>> Now my question: How can I restore the previous behaviour that allowed
>> other than whitespace separators between fields?
>
> diff -purw procps-3.3.17/ps/sortformat.c procps-4.0.2/src/ps/sortformat.c
>
On Sun, Feb 19, 2023 at 12:04:22PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> But even that's not enough
> because the field width is somewhat variable: try ps -eo '%c | %z | %a'
> (We can still use | to make the problem somewhat more obvious.)
Oh wow. Yeah, OK, that's not really solvable.
For those who
On Sat 18 Feb 2023 at 09:53:01 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> It should be noted that there appear to be two TYPES of data fields:
> numeric and string. Look at this example:
>
> unicorn:~$ ps -o '%C %g %n %p %U %a'
> %CPU RGROUPNI PID USER COMMAND
> 0.0 greg 01010 greg
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 10:28:43PM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 17 Feb 2023 at 11:30:43 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:20:34AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > > $ ps -eo '%p %C' | sed -e 's/\([^ ]\+\) /\1|/;'
> > Eww, GNUisms.
>
> I don't keep a list of diffe
On Fri 17 Feb 2023 at 11:30:43 (-0500), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:20:34AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> > On Fri 17 Feb 2023 at 10:05:20 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> > > So, to answer your question - currently the only way to restore the
> > > behaviour you want is to patch procps
On 2023-02-17 at 15:21, Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 01:49:59PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>
>> I can't speak to the new version, as I'm still running 3.3.17-7.1 on my
>> machine - but I can at least note that the man page from that older
>> version also explicitly says "a blank-
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 01:49:59PM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> I can't speak to the new version, as I'm still running 3.3.17-7.1 on my
> machine - but I can at least note that the man page from that older
> version also explicitly says "a blank-separated or comma-separated list"
> in the descripti
On 2023-02-17 at 13:21, debian-u...@howorth.org.uk wrote:
> Greg Wooledge wrote:
>
>> This sounds like a bug in procps that should be reported, if it
>> hasn't already.
>
> It might be a bug if it disagreed with its documentation. But do the
> docs say anything about this feature? What they do
Greg Wooledge wrote:
> This sounds like a bug in procps that should be reported, if it
> hasn't already.
It might be a bug if it disagreed with its documentation. But do the
docs say anything about this feature? What they do say is that you
should be able to use comma-separated field decriptions
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 09:20:34AM -0600, David Wright wrote:
> On Fri 17 Feb 2023 at 10:05:20 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> > So, to answer your question - currently the only way to restore the
> > behaviour you want is to patch procps and rebuild it.
Fabulous analysis.
> Or, depending on the context,
On Fri 17 Feb 2023 at 10:05:20 (+0300), Reco wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:46:23AM +0100, Andreas Leha wrote:
> > Now my question: How can I restore the previous behaviour that allowed
> > other than whitespace separators between fields?
>
> diff -purw procps-3.3.17/ps/sortformat.c procps-4.
Hi.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2023 at 07:46:23AM +0100, Andreas Leha wrote:
> Now my question: How can I restore the previous behaviour that allowed
> other than whitespace separators between fields?
diff -purw procps-3.3.17/ps/sortformat.c procps-4.0.2/src/ps/sortformat.c
shows me that:
@@ -128,2
Hi all,
I am facing a strange issue. This command used to work
ps -eo '%p|%C'
Now, on a debian testing machine only
ps -eo '%p %C'
works. Running
ps -eo '%p|%C'
results in this error:
error: improper AIX field descriptor
ps --version says 'ps from procps-ng 4.0.2'
Now my questio
17 matches
Mail list logo
