Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA5517 ; Fri, 01 Jan 93 01:47:51 EST Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pipex!bnr.co.uk!uknet!axion!rtf.bt.co.uk!duplain From: duplain@rtf.bt.co.uk (Andy Duplain) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Patch to allow ps(1) to identify console-controlled processes Message-ID: <1992Dec23.091229.17561@rtf.bt.co.uk> Date: 23 Dec 92 09:12:29 GMT References: <1992Dec21.154652.28356@rtf.bt.co.uk> <1992Dec22.122813.28550@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl> Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK Lines: 16 In article <1992Dec22.122813.28550@cnplss5.cnps.philips.nl> rooij@mozart.cft.philips.nl (G. van Rooij) writes: > >I ported ps a lonmg time ago (I think it was in version 0.0) but from >what I remember, there was a much simpler "hack": If I remember well >theer was a define (HP300 or so, it was definitely something with HP) >that also fixed a wrong behaviour towards console entries. When you >define this ps's output also is okay. Mmmm, I don't think so; the code I hacked had no #ifdefs etc., it was straight code. Perhaps I should have mentioned that the hack was for the 386BSD version of "ps" (keep thinking this group is comp.unix.386bsd :-). -- Andy Duplain, BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK. duplain@rtf.bt.co.uk #define DISCLAIMER My views and opinions are my own, and not my company's