From: Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org>
To: Seth McDonald <sethmcmail@pm.me>
Cc: "linux-man@vger.kernel.org" <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Early POSIX versions seldom included in history sections
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2025 13:49:11 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aUfsE7Yt45BVO56T@devuan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <nBJHItg3tSnUmbXVk7-VufAS9V8JckVOUAzwYGrGW59ireGiPGb3ppy40QL3bgZhJbheep4RVQ8owzThk4LFmFWV5kohm8s6FbGoqAxchp4=@pm.me>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2104 bytes --]
Hi Seth,
On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 08:17:07AM +0000, Seth McDonald wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 December 2025 at 03:44, Alejandro Colomar <alx@kernel.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:17:44PM +0000, Seth McDonald wrote:
> [...]
> > > If the reason is the latter, then I'd be happy to help here. I have
> > > access to POSIX.1-1988, POSIX.1-1990, and POSIX.1-1996, as well as SUS
> > > (1994) and SUSv2 (1997). So I can check each function and update their
> > > man page's history section with an earlier POSIX (or SUS) version if
> > > applicable. Though only if that's desirable for the man pages, of
> > > course; let me know if so.
> >
>
> > Yup! Thanks a lot! That would be helpful. :)
>
> Cool! So just to ensure that I conform to the man pages' preferences/
> standards, I want to ask a few things about documenting POSIX and SUS.
>
> POSIX and SUS converged to the same document in POSIX.1-2001/SUSv3. So
> if, for example, a function was first introduced in SUSv2 and then first
> appeared in a POSIX standard in POSIX.1-2001, should its history section
> include SUSv2, POSIX.1-2001, or both?
Both.
And for any similar questions, when in doubt, more information is
better.
> Suppose instead a function was first introduced in SUSv2, included in
> POSIX.1-2001 as an XSI extension, then in POSIX.1-2008 it was moved to
> Base. Should its history section include POSIX.1-2001 or POSIX.1-2008 as
> its first POSIX appearance (since XSI is SUS)?
I think you could do this:
SUSv2.
POSIX.1-2001 (XSI).
POSIX.1-2008.
> Suppose a function appeared in POSIX.1-1988, but its function signature
> then was different (e.g., returning 'int' instead of 'ssize_t', or
> taking 'char*' instead of 'const char*'). And it only got its current
> signature in POSIX.1-1990. Should its history section include
> POSIX.1-1988 or POSIX.1-1990?
I'd include both, and then include a paragraph clarifying that in
certain standards it had a different prototype (and show the prototype).
Have a lovely day!
Alex
--
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>
[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-21 12:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-12-20 16:17 Early POSIX versions seldom included in history sections Seth McDonald
2025-12-20 17:44 ` Alejandro Colomar
2025-12-21 8:17 ` Seth McDonald
2025-12-21 12:49 ` Alejandro Colomar [this message]
2025-12-22 0:58 ` Collin Funk
2025-12-23 3:56 ` Seth McDonald
2025-12-23 12:43 ` Alejandro Colomar
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=aUfsE7Yt45BVO56T@devuan \
--to=alx@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-man@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sethmcmail@pm.me \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox