AC_DEFINE(W_SHOWFROM, 1, [enable w from field by default])
fi
+AC_ARG_ENABLE([whining],
+ AS_HELP_STRING([--disable-whining], [do not print unnessary warnings (slackware-ism)]),
+ [], enable_whining=yes
+)
+if test "x$enable_whining" = xyes; then
+ AC_DEFINE(BUILD_WITH_WHINE, 1, [should extra warnings be printed (slackware-ism)])
+fi
+
if test x"$DEJAGNU" = x
then
DEJAGNU="\$(top_srcdir)/testsuite/global-conf.exp"
}
}
+#ifdef BUILD_WITH_WHINE
if(0){
bad_match:
message("Warning: %s does not match kernel data.\n", filename);
}
+#endif
if(0){
bad_version:
message("Warning: %s has an incorrect kernel version.\n", filename);
}
if(0){
+bad_alloc:
+ message("Warning: not enough memory available\n");
+ }
+#ifdef BUILD_WITH_WHINE
+ if(0){
bad_parse:
message("Warning: %s not parseable as a System.map\n", filename);
}
+#endif
if(0){
bad_open:
message("Warning: %s could not be opened as a System.map\n", filename);
// for some non-default personalities. So "ps -ax" will parse
// as SysV options... and you're screwed if you've been patching
// out the friendly warning. Cut-over is likely to be in 2005.
+#ifdef BUILD_WITH_WHINE
+ // Slackware:
+ // IMO, people can change old habits if and when user 'x' comes
+ // along. I still find this warning to be a POLA violation. No
+ // offense... that's the beauty of open source. You've got your
+ // ideas about this, and I have mine, and we're allowed to
+ // disagree. Nothing in the UNIX or POSIX standards requires
+ // this (annoying) warning to be displayed, and we're not
+ // changing the actual behavior of ps in any way. I know of no
+ // other 'ps' that produces this message.
if(!(personality & PER_FORCE_BSD))
fprintf(stderr, "Warning: bad ps syntax, perhaps a bogus '-'? See http://procps.sf.net/faq.html\n");
+#endif
// Remember: contact procps@freelists.org
// if you should feel tempted. Be damn sure you understand all
// the issues. The same goes for other stuff too, BTW. Please ask.