Re: PROPOSAL: /proc standards (was dot-proc interface [was: /proc

Erik Hensema
2001-11-06T21:46:15Z

Rik van Riel (riel@conectiva.com.br) wrote:
>On 6 Nov 2001, Erik Hensema wrote:
>
>> >1) IT SHOULD NOT BE PRETTY. No tabs to line up columns. No "progress
>> >bars." No labels except as "proc comments" (see later). No in-line labelling.
>>
>> It should not be pretty TO HUMANS. Slight difference. It should
>> be pretty to shellscripts and other applications though.
>
>I really fail to see your point, it's trivial to make
>files which are easy to read by humans and also very
>easy to parse by shellscripts.

Right, let me rephrase myself. There's no real need for /proc to be pretty
to humans, though it would be nice. Readability by applications should be
the priority though.

>PROCESSOR=0
>VENDOR_ID=GenuineIntel
>CPU_FAMILY=6
>MODEL=6
>MODEL_NAME="Celeron (Mendocino)"

Nice, it could work. However, the kernel does impose policy in this case
(variable naming policy, that is). But it's a nice compromise between
readability by humans and readability by programs.

--
Erik Hensema (erik@hensema.net)
I'm on the list, no need to Cc: me, though I appreciate one if your
mailer doesn't support the References header.