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 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 --