*BSD News Article 9282


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