Hi Seth, On Wed, Jan 07, 2026 at 03:33:17AM +0000, Seth McDonald wrote: > On Tuesday, 6 January 2026 at 22:35, Alejandro Colomar wrote: > > Hi Seth, > > > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2026 at 05:07:49PM +1000, Seth McDonald wrote: > [...] > > > Regarding the order of the listed standards in HISTORY sections, I've > > > seen man pages with the same set of standards listed in different > > > orders. But I have found a general ordering that a good number of pages > > > adhere to. That being: > > > > > > SVrX, X.XBSD, SUSvX, POSIX.1-YYYY, POSIX.2, Linux X.X, glibc X.X[.X], > > > others (e.g. OpenBSD, Solaris, AIX). > > > > I think it would be better to use chronologic order. I leave it up to > > you if you want to keep the patches as they are, and (optionally) > > improve the order afterwards, or fix the patches to use chronologic > > order. Since, as you say, there's no existing consistency, I'll accept > > the patches in any order; just let me know what you prefer. > > In that case, I'd much prefer to focus on just adding/adjusting the > listed POSIX/SUS standards before polishing their order. I'm also > currently not the most informed on the history of BSD and System V, > which are both commonly listed in HISTORY sections. So I'd have to > first take some time to research on that front. > > However, a more efficient method could be someone more knowledgeable > than me adjusting the order as I send in patches. That is, I attempt to > add POSIX/SUS standards in chronological order, then someone else can > adjust the order taking into account the non-POSIX/SUS standards listed. > If one is willing, of course. Okay, I can do some adjustments; someone else can come later and improve that further. > > [...] > > > I also followed a few more guidelines when editing these lists that may > > > be noteworthy: > > > - Since POSIX and SUS merged into the same document in POSIX.1-2001/ > > > SUSv3, only POSIX.1-2001 is listed for functions in these standards > > > (or later), but with XSI appended if the function was part of the XSI > > > extension (e.g. POSIX.1-2008 XSI). > > > > LGTM > > > > > - Since SUSv1 is aligned with POSIX.1-1990,[2] if a function's first > > > POSIX appearance was in POSIX.1-1988 or POSIX.1-1990, then it's first > > > appearance in SUSv1 is not also listed due to being implied by its > > > POSIX appearance. > > > > This should be documented in standards(7). > > Agreed. > > > > - Similarly, since SUSv2 is aligned with POSIX.1-1996,[3] the same is > > > true for functions first appearing in POSIX.1-1996 and SUSv2. > > > > This should be documented in standards(7). > > Agreed. > > > > So in general, SUS is listed if the function (or constant/type) appeared > > > in SUSv1 or SUSv2 before it appeared in POSIX.1. > > > > LGTM. > > > > > [1] https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst > > > [2] X/Open CAE Specification, System Interfaces and Headers Issue 4, > > > Version 2, Chapter 1.6 "Relationship to Formal Standards", p. 10. > > > > Do you have a link? > > I don't believe SUSv1 has any online HTML resource. However, its PDFs > (one per XPG4v2 volume) are available online. Here's the one for System > Interfaces and Headers: > > > > > [3] CAE Specification, System Interfaces and Headers, Issue 5, Chapter > > > 1.6 "Relationship to Formal Standards", p. 11. > > > > Do you have a link? > > SUSv2 does have an online HTML resource, but I couldn't find the > relevant section on it. Fortunately, it does also have PDF versions > online. Here's the one for System Interfaces and Headers: > Thanks! Have a lovely day! Alex > > ---- > Seth McDonald. > sethmcmail at pm dot me (mailing lists) > 2336 E8D2 FEB1 5300 692C  62A9 5839 6AD8 9243 D369 --