[PATCH 1/3] man/man7/signal.7: Mention SIGWINCH was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[PATCH 1/3] man/man7/signal.7: Mention SIGWINCH was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
---
 man/man7/signal.7 | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man/man7/signal.7 b/man/man7/signal.7
index 72d4aae47..730e90d12 100644
--- a/man/man7/signal.7
+++ b/man/man7/signal.7
@@ -342,6 +342,8 @@ .SS Standard signals
 in the original POSIX.1-1990 standard;
 "P2001" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed
 in SUSv2 and POSIX.1-2001.
+"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
+POSIX 2024.
 .TS
 l c c l
 ____
@@ -390,7 +392,7 @@ .SS Standard signals
 			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
 SIGXFSZ	P2001	Core	File size limit exceeded (4.2BSD);
 			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
-SIGWINCH	\-	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
+SIGWINCH	P2024	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
 .TE
 .P
 The signals
-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
---
 man/man3/getenv.3 | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/man3/getenv.3 b/man/man3/getenv.3
index f05e3eda5..8285dfc21 100644
--- a/man/man3/getenv.3
+++ b/man/man3/getenv.3
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION
 .I value
 string.
 .P
-The GNU-specific
+The
 .BR secure_getenv ()
 function is just like
 .BR getenv ()
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ .SH STANDARDS
 C11, POSIX.1-2008.
 .TP
 .BR secure_getenv ()
-GNU.
+POSIX.1-2024.
 .SH HISTORY
 .TP
 .BR getenv ()
 POSIX.1-2001, C89, C99, SVr4, 4.3BSD.
 .TP
 .BR secure_getenv ()
-glibc 2.17.
+GNU.
 .SH NOTES
 The strings in the environment list are of the form
 .IR name=value .
-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH 3/3] man/man3/ptsname.3: Mention ptsname_r was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
---
 man/man3/ptsname.3 | 13 ++++++-------
 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/man3/ptsname.3 b/man/man3/ptsname.3
index 748f1e19a..34d04fcf1 100644
--- a/man/man3/ptsname.3
+++ b/man/man3/ptsname.3
@@ -120,13 +120,9 @@ .SH STANDARDS
 .TP
 .BR ptsname ():
 POSIX.1-2008.
-.P
-.BR ptsname_r ()
-is a Linux extension, that is proposed for inclusion
-.\" FIXME . for later review when Issue 8 is one day released
-.\" http://austingroupbugs.net/tag_view_page.php?tag_id=8
-.\" http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=508
-in the next major revision of POSIX.1 (Issue 8).
+.TP
+.BR ptsname_r ():
+POSIX.1-2024.
 .SH HISTORY
 .TP
 .BR ptsname ():
@@ -136,6 +132,9 @@ .SH HISTORY
 .BR ptsname ()
 is part of the UNIX 98 pseudoterminal support (see
 .BR pts (4)).
+.TP
+.BR ptsname_r ():
+GNU.
 .SH SEE ALSO
 .BR grantpt (3),
 .BR posix_openpt (3),
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH 1/3] man/man7/signal.7: Mention SIGWINCH was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1181 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> ---
>  man/man7/signal.7 | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man7/signal.7 b/man/man7/signal.7
> index 72d4aae47..730e90d12 100644
> --- a/man/man7/signal.7
> +++ b/man/man7/signal.7
> @@ -342,6 +342,8 @@ .SS Standard signals

Nice!  :)

>  in the original POSIX.1-1990 standard;
>  "P2001" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed
>  in SUSv2 and POSIX.1-2001.
> +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> +POSIX 2024.

This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".

>  .TS
>  l c c l
>  ____
> @@ -390,7 +392,7 @@ .SS Standard signals
>  			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
>  SIGXFSZ	P2001	Core	File size limit exceeded (4.2BSD);
>  			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
> -SIGWINCH	\-	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
> +SIGWINCH	P2024	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)

LGTM.  Thanks!


Have a lovely night!
Alex

>  .TE
>  .P
>  The signals
> -- 
> 2.49.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1167 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:03PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
> ---
>  man/man3/getenv.3 | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man3/getenv.3 b/man/man3/getenv.3
> index f05e3eda5..8285dfc21 100644
> --- a/man/man3/getenv.3
> +++ b/man/man3/getenv.3
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION
>  .I value
>  string.
>  .P
> -The GNU-specific
> +The
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
>  function is just like
>  .BR getenv ()
> @@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ .SH STANDARDS
>  C11, POSIX.1-2008.
>  .TP
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
> -GNU.
> +POSIX.1-2024.
>  .SH HISTORY
>  .TP
>  .BR getenv ()
>  POSIX.1-2001, C89, C99, SVr4, 4.3BSD.
>  .TP
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
> -glibc 2.17.
> +GNU.

In HISTORY, I tend to not remove any details about versions.  The glibc
version where it was introduced might be useful for someone, so let's
keep it.  Other than that, LGTM.  Thanks!


Cheers,
Alex

>  .SH NOTES
>  The strings in the environment list are of the form
>  .IR name=value .
> -- 
> 2.49.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 3/3] man/man3/ptsname.3: Mention ptsname_r was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1236 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:04PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>

Thanks!  I've appplied this patch.


Cheers,
Alex

> ---
>  man/man3/ptsname.3 | 13 ++++++-------
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man3/ptsname.3 b/man/man3/ptsname.3
> index 748f1e19a..34d04fcf1 100644
> --- a/man/man3/ptsname.3
> +++ b/man/man3/ptsname.3
> @@ -120,13 +120,9 @@ .SH STANDARDS
>  .TP
>  .BR ptsname ():
>  POSIX.1-2008.
> -.P
> -.BR ptsname_r ()
> -is a Linux extension, that is proposed for inclusion
> -.\" FIXME . for later review when Issue 8 is one day released
> -.\" http://austingroupbugs.net/tag_view_page.php?tag_id=8
> -.\" http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=508
> -in the next major revision of POSIX.1 (Issue 8).
> +.TP
> +.BR ptsname_r ():
> +POSIX.1-2024.
>  .SH HISTORY
>  .TP
>  .BR ptsname ():
> @@ -136,6 +132,9 @@ .SH HISTORY
>  .BR ptsname ()
>  is part of the UNIX 98 pseudoterminal support (see
>  .BR pts (4)).
> +.TP
> +.BR ptsname_r ():
> +GNU.
>  .SH SEE ALSO
>  .BR grantpt (3),
>  .BR posix_openpt (3),
> -- 
> 2.49.0
> 
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 579 bytes --]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> In HISTORY, I tend to not remove any details about versions.  The glibc
> version where it was introduced might be useful for someone, so let's
> keep it.  Other than that, LGTM.  Thanks!

I thought the same, but I based my patch on getline which was GNU before
POSIX. It has:

    GNU, POSIX.1-2008.

What would it be better to do:

   glibc 2.17, POSIX.1-2024

or should it be:

   GNU (glibc 2.17), POSIX.1-2024

I would check other examples, but my memory for other functions POSIX
adopted from GNU isn't working well...

Collin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1115 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 02:25:41PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > In HISTORY, I tend to not remove any details about versions.  The glibc
> > version where it was introduced might be useful for someone, so let's
> > keep it.  Other than that, LGTM.  Thanks!
> 
> I thought the same, but I based my patch on getline which was GNU before
> POSIX. It has:

Thanks for checking!

>     GNU, POSIX.1-2008.
> 
> What would it be better to do:
> 
>    glibc 2.17, POSIX.1-2024

This is the better.  Actually, I tend to put POSIX before glibc:

	POSIX.1-2024, glibc 2.17.

I'll check the existing pages to try to put a consistent order.  For new
ones, let's do POSIX first (and ISO C before POSIX).

> or should it be:
> 
>    GNU (glibc 2.17), POSIX.1-2024

I use glibc and version if I know the version, or just GNU if I don't
know it.

> I would check other examples, but my memory for other functions POSIX
> adopted from GNU isn't working well...


Have a lovely night!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

the correct way to say "POSIX 2024"

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 729 bytes --]

Hi Alex,

At 2025-05-17T23:16:20+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> > +POSIX 2024.
> 
> This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".

Do you have a supporting reference for this?  I thought that since the
POSIX standard was no longer organized into subdivisions in the way it
was historically (with POSIX.1, POSIX.2, POSIX.4a, and so on), that
"POSIX.1-2004" was something of a misnomer.

I checked <https://www.opengroup.org/austin/>, but that page seems
careful not to use _either_ formulation!  (It instead refers only to
IEEE Std 1003.1-2024.)

Regards,
Branden

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

[PATCH v2 1/2] man/man7/signal.7: Mention SIGWINCH was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
---
 man/man7/signal.7 | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/man/man7/signal.7 b/man/man7/signal.7
index 72d4aae47..3e21286ed 100644
--- a/man/man7/signal.7
+++ b/man/man7/signal.7
@@ -342,6 +342,8 @@ .SS Standard signals
 in the original POSIX.1-1990 standard;
 "P2001" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed
 in SUSv2 and POSIX.1-2001.
+"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
+POSIX.1-2024.
 .TS
 l c c l
 ____
@@ -390,7 +392,7 @@ .SS Standard signals
 			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
 SIGXFSZ	P2001	Core	File size limit exceeded (4.2BSD);
 			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
-SIGWINCH	\-	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
+SIGWINCH	P2024	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
 .TE
 .P
 The signals
-- 
2.49.0

[PATCH v2 2/2] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>
---
 man/man3/getenv.3 | 6 +++---
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/man/man3/getenv.3 b/man/man3/getenv.3
index f05e3eda5..7da86cc30 100644
--- a/man/man3/getenv.3
+++ b/man/man3/getenv.3
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION
 .I value
 string.
 .P
-The GNU-specific
+The
 .BR secure_getenv ()
 function is just like
 .BR getenv ()
@@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ .SH STANDARDS
 C11, POSIX.1-2008.
 .TP
 .BR secure_getenv ()
-GNU.
+POSIX.1-2024.
 .SH HISTORY
 .TP
 .BR getenv ()
 POSIX.1-2001, C89, C99, SVr4, 4.3BSD.
 .TP
 .BR secure_getenv ()
-glibc 2.17.
+POSIX.1-2024, glibc 2.17.
 .SH NOTES
 The strings in the environment list are of the form
 .IR name=value .
-- 
2.49.0

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1037 bytes --]

Hi Alejandro,

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> This is the better.  Actually, I tend to put POSIX before glibc:
>
> 	POSIX.1-2024, glibc 2.17.
>
> I'll check the existing pages to try to put a consistent order.  For new
> ones, let's do POSIX first (and ISO C before POSIX).

[...]

> I use glibc and version if I know the version, or just GNU if I don't
> know it.

Cool, that makes sense. Thanks for the details.

I sent a v2 of those 2 patches.

FYI, I left the documentation that ptsname_r returns -1 on Tru64 and
HP-UX. I just remembered that this is also the case on FreeBSD where I
reported it and it was documented 2 years ago [1]. But it still hasn't
been changed [2].

Do you think that is worth documenting? We have to work around this in
Gnulib, for example, so applications can be portable.

Collin

[1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/commit/a5ed6a815e38d6c622cd97a6020592ded579cf7a
[2] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/6b8222793fbb4c0e162232716bc454dad31b709f/lib/libc/stdlib/ptsname.c#L74

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: the correct way to say "POSIX 2024"

[Mark Harris]

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 2:44 PM G. Branden Robinson
<g.branden.robinson@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Alex,
>
> At 2025-05-17T23:16:20+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > > +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> > > +POSIX 2024.
> >
> > This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".
>
> Do you have a supporting reference for this?  I thought that since the
> POSIX standard was no longer organized into subdivisions in the way it
> was historically (with POSIX.1, POSIX.2, POSIX.4a, and so on), that
> "POSIX.1-2004" was something of a misnomer.
>
> I checked <https://www.opengroup.org/austin/>, but that page seems
> careful not to use _either_ formulation!  (It instead refers only to
> IEEE Std 1003.1-2024.)
>
> Regards,
> Branden

It is POSIX.1-2024 (POSIX is shorthand for IEEE Std 1003).  For
example the Introduction uses POSIX.1-2024:
https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/basedefs/V1_chap01.html

 - Mark

Re: the correct way to say "POSIX 2024"

[G. Branden Robinson]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 621 bytes --]

Hi Mark,

At 2025-05-17T15:40:59-0700, Mark Harris wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 2:44 PM G. Branden Robinson
> > At 2025-05-17T23:16:20+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".
> >
> > Do you have a supporting reference for this?
> 
> It is POSIX.1-2024 (POSIX is shorthand for IEEE Std 1003).  For
> example the Introduction uses POSIX.1-2024:
> https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/basedefs/V1_chap01.html

Thanks!  That would do it.  This prompts me to check the documents I
maintain to ensure the correct nomenclature.

Regards,
Branden

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: the correct way to say "POSIX 2024"

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2322 bytes --]

Hi Branden,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 04:43:56PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> At 2025-05-17T23:16:20+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > > +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> > > +POSIX 2024.
> > 
> > This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".
> 
> Do you have a supporting reference for this?

Yep.  POSIX itself; see below.

>  I thought that since the
> POSIX standard was no longer organized into subdivisions in the way it
> was historically (with POSIX.1, POSIX.2, POSIX.4a, and so on), that
> "POSIX.1-2004" was something of a misnomer.
> 
> I checked <https://www.opengroup.org/austin/>, but that page seems
> careful not to use _either_ formulation!  (It instead refers only to
> IEEE Std 1003.1-2024.)

In a few places, they use POSIX.1-2024.  They don't do it often, because
most of the time they use either IEEE... or just Issue 8, but yesterday
while reviewing POSIX to update the manual pages, I remember having seen
a mention of "This volume of POSIX.1-2024", and it did indeed surprise
me, because I had never seen before POSIX using that term itself before.
I can't find it now (don't remember which page it was, and their search
engine isn't very useful).  I'll try to download and grep later the HTML
sources for that, 'cause I'm curious.

But trying to find it, I found another page where they use it even more,
and it's an introductory one, so it clearly is not something they
introduced by accident (which could have been the case of the one I saw
yesterday).  See:

<https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/mindex.html>

Quoting:

| POSIX.1-2024 is simultaneously IEEE Std 1003.1™-2024 and The Open
| Group Standard Base Specifications, Issue 8.
|
| POSIX.1-2024 defines a standard operating system interface and
| environment, including a command interpreter (or "shell"), and common
| utility programs to support applications portability at the source
| code level.  POSIX.1-2024 is intended to be used by both application
| developers and system implementors and comprises four major components
| (each in an associated volume):


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: the correct way to say "POSIX 2024"

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2681 bytes --]

On Sun, May 18, 2025 at 09:12:25AM +0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> Hi Branden,
> 
> On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 04:43:56PM -0500, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> > 
> > At 2025-05-17T23:16:20+0200, Alejandro Colomar wrote:
> > > On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 01:53:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> > > > +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> > > > +POSIX 2024.
> > > 
> > > This should be "POSIX.1-2024", not "POSIX 2024".
> > 
> > Do you have a supporting reference for this?
> 
> Yep.  POSIX itself; see below.
> 
> >  I thought that since the
> > POSIX standard was no longer organized into subdivisions in the way it
> > was historically (with POSIX.1, POSIX.2, POSIX.4a, and so on), that
> > "POSIX.1-2004" was something of a misnomer.
> > 
> > I checked <https://www.opengroup.org/austin/>, but that page seems
> > careful not to use _either_ formulation!  (It instead refers only to
> > IEEE Std 1003.1-2024.)
> 
> In a few places, they use POSIX.1-2024.  They don't do it often, because
> most of the time they use either IEEE... or just Issue 8, but yesterday
> while reviewing POSIX to update the manual pages, I remember having seen
> a mention of "This volume of POSIX.1-2024", and it did indeed surprise
> me, because I had never seen before POSIX using that term itself before.
> I can't find it now (don't remember which page it was, and their search
> engine isn't very useful).  I'll try to download and grep later the HTML
> sources for that, 'cause I'm curious.

Uhh, it's actually quite common:

	$ grep -rl 'This volume of POSIX.1-2024' \
	| grep ^functions/ \
	| wc -l;
	658

> 
> But trying to find it, I found another page where they use it even more,
> and it's an introductory one, so it clearly is not something they
> introduced by accident (which could have been the case of the one I saw
> yesterday).  See:
> 
> <https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/mindex.html>
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> | POSIX.1-2024 is simultaneously IEEE Std 1003.1™-2024 and The Open
> | Group Standard Base Specifications, Issue 8.
> |
> | POSIX.1-2024 defines a standard operating system interface and
> | environment, including a command interpreter (or "shell"), and common
> | utility programs to support applications portability at the source
> | code level.  POSIX.1-2024 is intended to be used by both application
> | developers and system implementors and comprises four major components
> | (each in an associated volume):
> 
> 
> Have a lovely day!
> Alex
> 
> -- 
> <https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 846 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 03:19:22PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> FYI, I left the documentation that ptsname_r returns -1 on Tru64 and
> HP-UX. I just remembered that this is also the case on FreeBSD where I
> reported it and it was documented 2 years ago [1]. But it still hasn't
> been changed [2].
> 
> Do you think that is worth documenting? We have to work around this in
> Gnulib, for example, so applications can be portable.

Do you mean mentioning FreeBSD in VERSIONS?  If so, yes, I think that
would be useful.


Cheers,
Alex

> 
> Collin
> 
> [1] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/commit/a5ed6a815e38d6c622cd97a6020592ded579cf7a
> [2] https://github.com/freebsd/freebsd-src/blob/6b8222793fbb4c0e162232716bc454dad31b709f/lib/libc/stdlib/ptsname.c#L74



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] man/man7/signal.7: Mention SIGWINCH was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1119 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 03:10:40PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>

Thanks!  I've applied the patch.


Cheers,
Alex

> ---
>  man/man7/signal.7 | 4 +++-
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man7/signal.7 b/man/man7/signal.7
> index 72d4aae47..3e21286ed 100644
> --- a/man/man7/signal.7
> +++ b/man/man7/signal.7
> @@ -342,6 +342,8 @@ .SS Standard signals
>  in the original POSIX.1-1990 standard;
>  "P2001" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed
>  in SUSv2 and POSIX.1-2001.
> +"P2024" indicates that the signal was added or its definition changed in
> +POSIX.1-2024.
>  .TS
>  l c c l
>  ____
> @@ -390,7 +392,7 @@ .SS Standard signals
>  			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
>  SIGXFSZ	P2001	Core	File size limit exceeded (4.2BSD);
>  			see \f[B]setrlimit\f[](2)
> -SIGWINCH	\-	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
> +SIGWINCH	P2024	Ign	Window resize signal (4.3BSD, Sun)
>  .TE
>  .P
>  The signals
> -- 
> 2.49.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1035 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Sat, May 17, 2025 at 03:10:41PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Collin Funk <collin.funk1@gmail.com>

Thanks!  I've applied the patch.


Cheers,
Alex

> ---
>  man/man3/getenv.3 | 6 +++---
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/man/man3/getenv.3 b/man/man3/getenv.3
> index f05e3eda5..7da86cc30 100644
> --- a/man/man3/getenv.3
> +++ b/man/man3/getenv.3
> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ .SH DESCRIPTION
>  .I value
>  string.
>  .P
> -The GNU-specific
> +The
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
>  function is just like
>  .BR getenv ()
> @@ -88,14 +88,14 @@ .SH STANDARDS
>  C11, POSIX.1-2008.
>  .TP
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
> -GNU.
> +POSIX.1-2024.
>  .SH HISTORY
>  .TP
>  .BR getenv ()
>  POSIX.1-2001, C89, C99, SVr4, 4.3BSD.
>  .TP
>  .BR secure_getenv ()
> -glibc 2.17.
> +POSIX.1-2024, glibc 2.17.
>  .SH NOTES
>  The strings in the environment list are of the form
>  .IR name=value .
> -- 
> 2.49.0
> 

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

Hi Alejandro,

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> Do you mean mentioning FreeBSD in VERSIONS?  If so, yes, I think that
> would be useful.

Yes, that is what I meant. I'll write a patch for it then.

By the way, I don't see my other patches on the master branch. Is there
another branch I should be writing my changes for?

Thanks,
Collin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 733 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 08:18:02PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Hi Alejandro,
> 
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Do you mean mentioning FreeBSD in VERSIONS?  If so, yes, I think that
> > would be useful.
> 
> Yes, that is what I meant. I'll write a patch for it then.

Thanks!

> 
> By the way, I don't see my other patches on the master branch. Is there
> another branch I should be writing my changes for?

Hmmm, I applied some patches while traveling, so they're probably still
sitting on my laptop and I forgot to push.  I'll check this weekend and
push anything I have there.  Thanks for the reminder!


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Collin Funk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 389 bytes --]

Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:

> Hmmm, I applied some patches while traveling, so they're probably still
> sitting on my laptop and I forgot to push.  I'll check this weekend and
> push anything I have there.  Thanks for the reminder!

No problem, just wanted to wanted to make sure my patches weren't going
to be annoying to apply. :)

> Have a lovely day!

You too!

Collin

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

Re: [PATCH 2/3] man/man3/getenv.3: Mention secure_getenv was standardized in POSIX-1.2024

[Alejandro Colomar]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 852 bytes --]

Hi Collin,

On Fri, May 23, 2025 at 02:22:01PM -0700, Collin Funk wrote:
> Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> writes:
> 
> > Hmmm, I applied some patches while traveling, so they're probably still
> > sitting on my laptop and I forgot to push.  I'll check this weekend and
> > push anything I have there.  Thanks for the reminder!
> 
> No problem, just wanted to wanted to make sure my patches weren't going
> to be annoying to apply. :)

I've pushed a moment ago all of the patches I'm working on about
POSIX.1-2024.  Those include mine and yours.  They're in the branch
'posix24' in the kernel.org git repo.

<https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/docs/man-pages/man-pages.git/log/?h=posix24>


Have a lovely day!
Alex

> 
> > Have a lovely day!
> 
> You too!

:-)

> 
> Collin



-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es/>

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]