Hi! On Thu, Nov 11, 1999 at 08:18:47PM +0200, Martin-Eric Racine wrote: > > The issue is that this would break programs which open > > filenames like "u:\proc\*.%03d"... > > If they'are all MiNT/Unix tools/ports, they could be recompiled. Well, I don't see any need in allowing more than 999 concurrent processes at the moment, and making U:\proc a case-preserving filesystem with longer filenames won't break code that looks for what Julian(?) wrote (e.g. rpc.nfsd.020 would still match the mask mentioned). But see below. > If there is, could /proc be upgraded to replace the first dot in > a filename with an underscore (but still truncate any characters > beyong 8) so that all inetd and rpc applications don't show as a > in.<PID> and rpc.<PID> but at least provide _some_ hints? Well, the code could easily be changed to do so, but of course, there remains the problem what to do with standard TOS executable names, e.g. thing.app. IMO, it wouldn't be nice to see it as thing_ap.030. Just chop the six known extensions (tos, ttp, prg, app, gtp, acc)? But it would be nice to get more precise names from U:\proc in cases like rpc.foo. Ciao Thomas -- Thomas Binder (Gryf @ IRCNet) gryf@hrzpub.tu-darmstadt.de PGP-key available on request! binder@rbg.informatik.tu-darmstadt.de Vote against SPAM: http://www.politik-digital.de/spam/
Attachment:
pgpuuuk8I_9Qg.pgp
Description: PGP signature