Re: procps-1.2.2 [OFFTOPIC]

G. Sumner Hayes (
Thu, 18 Dec 1997 14:30:26 -0500

[This discussion should move to comp.os.linux.development.system or
somewhere else; it's not a kernel problem per se]

On Thu, Dec 18, 1997 at 10:41:54AM -0800, Jimmie Farmer wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 1997, Brian wrote:
> > I upgraded to procps-1.2.2 as per the Changes file for the latest kernels,
> > and noticed this:
> >
> > luna:~$ ps -aux
> > warning: `-' deprecated; use `ps aux', not `ps -aux'
> >
> > Why did they do away with the "-"? Isn't it "standard" to use a - for
> > arguments to a program? So now we are suppose to do like "ps aux"?
> This was driving me batty as well, so I just commented that stupid
> thing out in ps.c. =-) It is at about line 157, and I just did this:

As of procps-1.2.4, setting the "I_WANT_A_BROKEN_PS" environment variable
will turn off the warnings. It's probably a _bad_ idea to do this, though,
as the behavior of ps with a - is going to change and you will have broken
scripts if you don't fix them.

> Of course, this won't help when the program won't accept ps -foo
> at all, so I would beg the authors to not do this at all, please. Just
> let it accept both ps -foo and ps foo equally.

It can't. The old ps uses BSD semantics with the -. The new ps
will use Unix98 semantics with the - in order to comply with the
relevant standards. The Unix98 options conflict with the BSD options;
be thankful that the standard allows for BSD options if the - is omitted
rather than eliminating them altogether.

The documentation with procps-1.2.4 explains this all.


rage, rage against the dying of the light