emo/procps
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Activity

Removed bogus bogus -aux message

Browse Source 
This message has been here for ages and either people ignore it because
they are so used to using -aux or never see it.  It was here before 2005
and really 7 years is enought time to people to change their ways.

The notice is now removed, people who make usenames like "x" deserve all
the punishment they can get.

Bug-Debian: http://bugs.debian.org/670592
This commit is contained in:
Craig Small 2012-05-22 20:50:34 +10:00
parent c6e3ec4602
commit dc1531b211
3 changed files with 15 additions and 29 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
NEWS
View File

@ -1,3 +1,7 @@
procps-ng-3.3.4
---------------
* Removed ps -aux bogus message
procps-ng-3.3.3 procps-ng-3.3.3
--------------- ---------------
* watch -g command repeats until something changes * watch -g command repeats until something changes

29
ps/parser.c
View File

@ -1221,35 +1221,6 @@ try_bsd:
err2 = select_bits_setup(); err2 = select_bits_setup();
if(err2) goto total_failure; if(err2) goto total_failure;
// Feel a need to patch this out? First of all, read the FAQ.
// Second of all, talk to me. Without this warning, people can
// get seriously confused. Ask yourself if users would freak out
// about "ps -aux" suddenly changing behavior if a user "x" were
// added to the system.
//
// Also, a "-x" option is coming. It's already there in fact,
// for some non-default personalities. So "ps -ax" will parse
// as SysV options... and you're screwed if you've been patching
// out the friendly warning. Cut-over is likely to be in 2005.
#ifdef BUILD_WITH_WHINE
// Slackware:
// IMO, people can change old habits if and when user 'x' comes
// along. I still find this warning to be a POLA violation. No
// offense... that's the beauty of open source. You've got your
// ideas about this, and I have mine, and we're allowed to
// disagree. Nothing in the UNIX or POSIX standards requires
// this (annoying) warning to be displayed, and we're not
// changing the actual behavior of ps in any way. I know of no
// other 'ps' that produces this message.
if(!(personality & PER_FORCE_BSD))
fprintf(stderr, _("warning: bad ps syntax, perhaps a bogus '-'?\n"
"See http://gitorious.org/procps/procps/blobs/master/Documentation/FAQ\n"));
#endif
// Remember: contact procps@freelists.org
// if you should feel tempted. Be damn sure you understand all
// the issues. The same goes for other stuff too, BTW. Please ask.
// I'm happy to justify various implementation choices.
choose_dimensions(); choose_dimensions();
return 0; return 0;

11
ps/ps.1
View File

@ -803,6 +803,17 @@ if the parent process exits.
.PP .PP
If the length of the username is greater than the length of the display If the length of the username is greater than the length of the display
column, the numeric user ID is displayed instead. column, the numeric user ID is displayed instead.
.PP
Commands options such as
.B ps
.I\-aux
are not recommended as it is a confusion of two different standards.
According to the POSIX and UNIX standards, the above command asks to
display all processes with a TTY (generally the commands users are
running) plus all processes owned by a user named "x". If that user
doesn't exist, then
.B ps
will assume you really meant "\fBps\fR \fIaux\fR".
.SH "PROCESS FLAGS" .SH "PROCESS FLAGS"
The sum of these values is displayed in the "F" column, The sum of these values is displayed in the "F" column,
which is provided by the which is provided by the