Messages in this thread |  | | From | (Miquel van Smoorenburg) | Subject | Re: proposal for generic interface to /proc text files | Date | 30 Sep 1996 19:52:51 +0200 |
| |
In article <Pine.LNX.3.91.960930182408.11970E-100000@audio.apana.org.au>, Keith Owens <kaos@audio.apana.org.au> wrote: >On Sun, 29 Sep 1996, Rob Riggs wrote: >> On 29-Sep-96 Daniel Quinlan wrote: >> >This is a proposal for a generic interface for text files in /proc. >> >It is designed to be easy to parse with most languages as well as >> >humans. It is also designed to be extensible, modular, etc. >> [various formatting suggestions omitted] > >One problem that has reared its ugly head is reading newer format proc >entries with older programs. The current plain text /proc files are not [..]
Someone else has just proposed to rename /proc to /linux-proc or so because /proc also exist on other systems (like SVR4) and eventually we would perhaps like to clone that interface as well.
So assuming that everybody agrees reconstructing /proc is nessecary (which is a bit unlikely) why don't you just build a totally new, seperate interface? This way you can have both the old-style /proc and the new-style /proc-linux, and when all programs (esp. procps and network utils) have been changed to the new format you just build a kernel with only /proc-linux.
Mike. -- + Miquel van Smoorenburg + Cistron Internet Services + Living is a | | miquels@cistron.nl (SP6) | Independent Dutch ISP | horizontal | + miquels@drinkel.cistron.nl + http://www.cistron.nl/ + fall +
|  |