Further inconsistencies in FTM

public inbox for linux-man@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed

* Further inconsistencies in FTM
@ 2021-01-07 17:04 Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
  2021-01-08 10:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) @ 2021-01-07 17:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages); +Cc: linux-man

Hi Michael,

[[
SYNOPSIS
       #include <stdlib.h>

       int clearenv(void);

   Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
   ture_test_macros(7)):

       clearenv():
           /* Glibc since 2.19: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
               || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _SVID_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE

]]

[[
SYNOPSIS
       #include <time.h>

       int dysize(int year);

   Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
   ture_test_macros(7)):

       dysize():
           Since glibc 2.19:
               _DEFAULT_SOURCE
           Glibc 2.19 and earlier:
               _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE

]]

Which one do you prefer?

Thanks,

Alex


-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Further inconsistencies in FTM
  2021-01-07 17:04 Further inconsistencies in FTM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
@ 2021-01-08 10:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
  2021-01-08 11:14   ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) @ 2021-01-08 10:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alejandro Colomar (man-pages); +Cc: mtk.manpages, linux-man

Hi Alex,

On 1/7/21 6:04 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> [[
> SYNOPSIS
>        #include <stdlib.h>
> 
>        int clearenv(void);
> 
>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>    ture_test_macros(7)):
> 
>        clearenv():
>            /* Glibc since 2.19: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>                || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _SVID_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE
> 
> ]]
> 
> [[
> SYNOPSIS
>        #include <time.h>
> 
>        int dysize(int year);
> 
>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>    ture_test_macros(7)):
> 
>        dysize():
>            Since glibc 2.19:
>                _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>            Glibc 2.19 and earlier:
>                _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE
> 
> ]]
> 
> Which one do you prefer?

Probably the latter, since it is a little easier to read.

The former form has crept in as a result of my attempts
to keep the FTM info somewhat compact. See, for example:

       chroot():
           Since glibc 2.2.2:
               _XOPEN_SOURCE && ! (_POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200112L)
                   || /* Since glibc 2.20: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
                   || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE
           Before glibc 2.2.2:
               none


       waitid():
           Since glibc 2.26:
               _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
           Glibc 2.25 and earlier:
               _XOPEN_SOURCE
                   || /* Since glibc 2.12: */ _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
                   || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE

The latter could be rewritten (I hope I got the expansion right) 
as:
       waitid():
           Since glibc 2.26:
               _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
           Glibc 2.20 to 2.25
               _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
           Glibc 2.12 to 2.19
               _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
                   || _BSD_SOURCE
           Glibc 2.11 and earlier:
               _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE

 
That's more verbose, but perhaps also easier to read, now that
I look at it.

I'm not sure whether you are thinking of doing some global edit,
but if you are, perhaps we need to discuss this more.

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Further inconsistencies in FTM
  2021-01-08 10:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
@ 2021-01-08 11:14   ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
  2021-01-08 12:59     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) @ 2021-01-08 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages); +Cc: linux-man

Hi Michael,

On 1/8/21 11:50 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Alex,
> 
> On 1/7/21 6:04 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Michael,
>>
>> [[
>> SYNOPSIS
>>        #include <stdlib.h>
>>
>>        int clearenv(void);
>>
>>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>>    ture_test_macros(7)):
>>
>>        clearenv():
>>            /* Glibc since 2.19: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>>                || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _SVID_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE
>>
>> ]]
>>
>> [[
>> SYNOPSIS
>>        #include <time.h>
>>
>>        int dysize(int year);
>>
>>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>>    ture_test_macros(7)):
>>
>>        dysize():
>>            Since glibc 2.19:
>>                _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>>            Glibc 2.19 and earlier:
>>                _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE
>>
>> ]]
>>
>> Which one do you prefer?
> 
> Probably the latter, since it is a little easier to read.
> 
> The former form has crept in as a result of my attempts
> to keep the FTM info somewhat compact. See, for example:
> 
>        chroot():
>            Since glibc 2.2.2:
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE && ! (_POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200112L)
>                    || /* Since glibc 2.20: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>                    || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE
>            Before glibc 2.2.2:
>                none
> 
> 
>        waitid():
>            Since glibc 2.26:
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>            Glibc 2.25 and earlier:
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE
>                    || /* Since glibc 2.12: */ _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>                    || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE
> 
> The latter could be rewritten (I hope I got the expansion right) 
> as:
>        waitid():
>            Since glibc 2.26:
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>            Glibc 2.20 to 2.25
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>            Glibc 2.12 to 2.19
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>                    || _BSD_SOURCE
>            Glibc 2.11 and earlier:
>                _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE
> 
>  
> That's more verbose, but perhaps also easier to read, now that
> I look at it.
> 
> I'm not sure whether you are thinking of doing some global edit,
> but if you are, perhaps we need to discuss this more.

Well, I'm not thinking of a global edit right now (we've had enough of
those for now I think :), but more as something to think for the future.
So yes, a discussion about if we prefer to have a single way of
expressing FTM or if there are times when the other way is better would
be good.
Your thoughts?

Thanks,

Alex

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Michael
> 
> 

-- 
Alejandro Colomar
Linux man-pages comaintainer; https://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
http://www.alejandro-colomar.es/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

* Re: Further inconsistencies in FTM
  2021-01-08 11:14   ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
@ 2021-01-08 12:59     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) @ 2021-01-08 12:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Alejandro Colomar (man-pages); +Cc: mtk.manpages, linux-man

Hi ALex,

On 1/8/21 12:14 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> 
> On 1/8/21 11:50 AM, Michael Kerrisk (man-pages) wrote:
>> Hi Alex,
>>
>> On 1/7/21 6:04 PM, Alejandro Colomar (man-pages) wrote:
>>> Hi Michael,
>>>
>>> [[
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>>        #include <stdlib.h>
>>>
>>>        int clearenv(void);
>>>
>>>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>>>    ture_test_macros(7)):
>>>
>>>        clearenv():
>>>            /* Glibc since 2.19: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>>>                || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _SVID_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE
>>>
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> [[
>>> SYNOPSIS
>>>        #include <time.h>
>>>
>>>        int dysize(int year);
>>>
>>>    Feature   Test   Macro   Requirements  for  glibc  (see  fea‐
>>>    ture_test_macros(7)):
>>>
>>>        dysize():
>>>            Since glibc 2.19:
>>>                _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>>>            Glibc 2.19 and earlier:
>>>                _BSD_SOURCE || _SVID_SOURCE
>>>
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> Which one do you prefer?
>>
>> Probably the latter, since it is a little easier to read.
>>
>> The former form has crept in as a result of my attempts
>> to keep the FTM info somewhat compact. See, for example:
>>
>>        chroot():
>>            Since glibc 2.2.2:
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE && ! (_POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200112L)
>>                    || /* Since glibc 2.20: */ _DEFAULT_SOURCE
>>                    || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE
>>            Before glibc 2.2.2:
>>                none
>>
>>
>>        waitid():
>>            Since glibc 2.26:
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>>            Glibc 2.25 and earlier:
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE
>>                    || /* Since glibc 2.12: */ _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>>                    || /* Glibc <= 2.19: */ _BSD_SOURCE
>>
>> The latter could be rewritten (I hope I got the expansion right) 
>> as:
>>        waitid():
>>            Since glibc 2.26:
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE >= 500 || _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>>            Glibc 2.20 to 2.25
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>>            Glibc 2.12 to 2.19
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE ||  _POSIX_C_SOURCE >= 200809L
>>                    || _BSD_SOURCE
>>            Glibc 2.11 and earlier:
>>                _XOPEN_SOURCE || _BSD_SOURCE
>>
>>  
>> That's more verbose, but perhaps also easier to read, now that
>> I look at it.
>>
>> I'm not sure whether you are thinking of doing some global edit,
>> but if you are, perhaps we need to discuss this more.
> 
> Well, I'm not thinking of a global edit right now (we've had enough of
> those for now I think :), but more as something to think for the future.
> So yes, a discussion about if we prefer to have a single way of
> expressing FTM or if there are times when the other way is better would
> be good.
> Your thoughts?

On reflection, I think the final form that I have shown may be
preferable.

Thanks,

Michael


-- 
Michael Kerrisk
Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/
Linux/UNIX System Programming Training: http://man7.org/training/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-01-08 13:00 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-01-07 17:04 Further inconsistencies in FTM Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2021-01-08 10:50 ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)
2021-01-08 11:14   ` Alejandro Colomar (man-pages)
2021-01-08 12:59     ` Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox