Don Cragun writes:
> >> # TZ=US/Pacific
> >> are allowed by the standard, you can do the same thing in a manner
> >> compatible with the standard.
> >
> >However that could leads you to interpreting comments which would be bad.
> 
> Agreed.  I was not suggesting that this exact form is a good idea; only
> that the standards allow comments in crontab files.

They don't allow the comments to be interpreted.

More importantly, though, this still wouldn't be portable.  If we did
this, then crontab files created on Solaris that use this new
construct would *NOT* be interpreted correctly if copied over to some
other system.

Yes, the "comments" would be ignored, but the resulting crontab file
would be misinterpreted: the time zone would not be adjusted for the
entries that follow, and thus it'd fail to start the jobs when the
user expected them to be started.

So, merely changing these things into comments is not a solution to
the portability problem.

> >Which standard would we be in breach of?
> 
> SVID3, POSIX.1-2001, POSIX.2-1988, XPG3, XPG4, SUS, SUSv2, SUSv3, ...

I think it's much simpler to say something like this:

        Solaris supports a proper superset of the standards listed
        below.  The user can choose to add "<variable>=<value>" lines
        to his crontab(4) file.  If he chooses to do so, then his
        crontab will not be in compliance with those standards, and
        may not be portable to other operating systems that support
        only those standards.

        Crontab(4) files that are in compliance with those standards
        will always work properly on a Solaris system.

In other words, just as it is with adding (say) /opt/csw/bin to your
$PATH, it's the user's choice whether he wants to walk outside the
standards.  He doesn't have to.

-- 
James Carlson, Solaris Networking              <james.d.carlson at sun.com>
Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive         71.232W   Vox +1 781 442 2084
MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757   42.496N   Fax +1 781 442 1677

Reply via email to