Ceri Davies writes: > On Mon, Feb 09, 2009 at 10:36:35PM +0100, Casper.Dik at sun.com wrote: > > > > > > >This kind of precludes adding any new options to /usr/ucb/ps, ever. I > > >don't believe that this is a particularly bad thing, just want to be > > >crystal clear that this is what we want to do. > > > > As Garrett says that would "violate the principle of least surprise"; the > > only problem would be that adding a,, e.g., "-f" option to /usr/ucb/ps would > > make "/usr/ucb/ps -ef" do something different. > > > > But you can still add the new option to /usr/ucb/ps. > > I would expect this body to reject such a change given that it would > change the behaviour, so I do believe that this case would essentially > freeze the /usr/ucb/ps interface.
Right; there'd be some subtle changes that would occur if we allowed that. > I personally have no problem with > that. Nor would I. The whole point of /usr/ucb is to retain some compatibility with ancient SunOS 4.x behavior, and it's not as though *that* reference functionality will ever change. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
