A NOTE has been added to this issue. ====================================================================== https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1808 ====================================================================== Reported By: cquike Assigned To: ====================================================================== Project: 1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 Issue ID: 1808 Category: Shell and Utilities Type: Clarification Requested Severity: Editorial Priority: normal Status: Resolved Name: Enrique Garcia Organization: User Reference: Section: getconf Page Number: (page or range of pages) Line Number: (Line or range of lines) Interp Status: --- Final Accepted Text: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1808#c6747 Resolution: Accepted As Marked Fixed in Version: ====================================================================== Date Submitted: 2024-02-03 01:44 UTC Last Modified: 2024-04-23 13:57 UTC ====================================================================== Summary: Add option -a to getconf utility ======================================================================
---------------------------------------------------------------------- (0006773) kre (reporter) - 2024-04-23 13:57 https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1808#c6773 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Re: https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1808#c6772 POSIX can only standardise existing practice, we cannot invent a new format I agree, pity the people who invented all of those posix_abcdefg() interfaces (and a whole bunch more) apparently do not. That's why I suggested doing nothing right now. This issue is already tagged as issue9 (which seems correct to me) - which means it isn't going to appear in a standard for a decade or more (just consider the time between when issue7 was published, and whenever it eventually happens, issue8). Now the issues are known, there is plenty of time for the implementers to implement something better (safer) that what now exists. If that doesn't happen, then what is proposed can be accepted sometime much closer to the issue9 deadline. Note, I am not suggesting this for everything - in general there's a benefit to knowing (being able to find out) what the next standard will say about something - allows new implementers to match the existing (appropriate) behaviour, which just happens to not yet be standardised. But here, existing behaviour seems to be unsafe, and not good to specify, however unlikely you believe it to be that it will actually cause problems. Just wait. Change the status back to just "open". Issue History Date Modified Username Field Change ====================================================================== 2024-02-03 01:44 cquike New Issue 2024-02-03 01:44 cquike Name => Enrique Garcia 2024-02-03 01:44 cquike Section => getconf 2024-02-03 01:44 cquike Page Number => (page or range of pages) 2024-02-03 01:44 cquike Line Number => (Line or range of lines) 2024-02-25 05:48 kre Note Added: 0006674 2024-03-06 10:40 cquike Note Added: 0006705 2024-04-11 15:19 geoffclare Note Added: 0006747 2024-04-11 15:21 geoffclare Note Edited: 0006747 2024-04-11 15:21 geoffclare Interp Status => --- 2024-04-11 15:21 geoffclare Final Accepted Text => https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1808#c6747 2024-04-11 15:21 geoffclare Status New => Resolved 2024-04-11 15:21 geoffclare Resolution Open => Accepted As Marked 2024-04-11 15:22 geoffclare Tag Attached: issue9 2024-04-17 19:27 eblake Note Added: 0006764 2024-04-18 01:04 philip-guentherNote Added: 0006765 2024-04-18 09:36 geoffclare Note Added: 0006766 2024-04-19 12:28 kre Note Added: 0006768 2024-04-19 13:40 geoffclare Note Added: 0006769 2024-04-19 15:33 kre Note Edited: 0006768 2024-04-19 15:37 kre Note Added: 0006770 2024-04-23 09:59 geoffclare Note Added: 0006772 2024-04-23 13:57 kre Note Added: 0006773 ======================================================================
