Re: "-" operand to "sh"

Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > While doing this, I discovered that the Burne Shell first parses the > > command line options and later decides whether the current shell is > > interactive. For this reason, I do not see that it would be possible > > to use "sh +m" in a useful way. >

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

2017-06-08 11:10:36 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > > > Could it be that it means that "." and ".." should be returned > > *first* when they're there on XSI systems? (which would be yet > > another interpretation that is valid as an "extension"

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

2017-06-08 03:37:30 +0700, Robert Elz: > Date:Wed, 7 Jun 2017 20:56:17 +0100 > From:Stephane CHAZELAS > Message-ID: <20170607195617.gf5...@chaz.gmail.com> > > | I imagine that text was there for some reason. > > I have always thought

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

Robert Elz wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > And while here, I am also not in favour of attempts to "fix" breakage, just > so we appear to conform to the standard. If "." and ".." are supposed to > appear in the directories, and (for whatever reason) only one of them happens > to be

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

Yes, pretty much. I can't say why it's phrased as it is, I didn't write it. I lean towards some implementation was making unnamed dirents if the file system didn't have those as names, perhaps originally for 8" floppies or 9 track tapes, so something intended to preclude that was added in as

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

2017-06-08 11:39:31 +0200, Joerg Schilling: > Jilles Tjoelker wrote: > > > > While doing this, I discovered that the Burne Shell first parses the > > > command line options and later decides whether the current shell is > > > interactive. For this reason, I do not see that it

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > I can see that text was already there at > http://archive.opengroup.org/publications/archive/CDROM/c435.pdf > (1994, I don't think I have access to older POSIX/Unix related > specifications), but marked "EX" (extension)

RE: Access to old POSIX specifications (Was: s/2013/2016/g at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html)

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Joe Gwinn wrote: > Joseph M, > > What will you do with this old standard? I routinely use these standards for reference for implementation work (since in practice implementations deal with multiple standard versions, not just the latest), as well as for understanding the

Re: s/2013/2016/g at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > BTW, are older (than SUSv1) versions of POSIX available > somewhere? All previous versions were only distributed on paper. > What about the archives of the mailing list (prior to > gmane)? Try

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > 2017-06-08 12:11:22 +0100, Geoff Clare: > [...] > > > OK, but the question remains: "what does it mean?". A "stricter > > > requirement" for what? That "." or ".." should not come without > > > the other (my

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

Stephane Chazelas wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > 2017-06-08 12:11:22 +0100, Geoff Clare: > [...] > > I can't answer that without knowing why the Base Working Group decided > > to put in that text instead of using the POSIX.1-1990 text. It's > > possible there might be

s/2013/2016/g at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html

Hello, I just came across https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html where question Q0, Q3 ("What is the latest version of POSIX.1?") would need to be updated following the recent release of TC2. -- Stephane

Re: s/2013/2016/g at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html

2017-06-08 13:02:45 +0100, Stephane Chazelas: [...] > I just came across > https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html > where question Q0, Q3 ("What is the latest version of POSIX.1?") > would need to be updated following the recent release of TC2. [...] Q18 as well. BTW, are older

Re: "-" operand to "sh"

Stephane CHAZELAS wrote: > Let's face it, a shell that would leave the "m" option "on" when > the user explicitly requested it to be "off" in > > sh +m > > is a bug (and in this case also a conformance bug for shells > that support UP though it may need to be

About Q15 in the POSIX FAQ

https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html > Q15. Does removal of obsolescent utility syntax mean that > implementations supporting usages of head -5 file, tail -5 file, > tail -l file are no longer allowed? > > No, in general the intent of removing the obsolescent forms of > the

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

2017-06-08 11:01:29 +0100, Geoff Clare: > Robert Elz wrote, on 08 Jun 2017: > > > > And while here, I am also not in favour of attempts to "fix" breakage, just > > so we appear to conform to the standard. If "." and ".." are supposed to > > appear in the directories, and (for

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

2017-06-08 12:11:22 +0100, Geoff Clare: [...] > > OK, but the question remains: "what does it mean?". A "stricter > > requirement" for what? That "." or ".." should not come without > > the other (my interpretation)? Or that they should not be > > treated specially (Mark's interpretation) or that

Re: rm -rf ./ ../

It supports base POSIX systems aren't non-conforming, if they use how I interpret it. Requiring both if one exists but not the other is XSI, it looks, but my copy of c165.pdf just has the shading, not the XSI margin code. So we could both be right and wrong on this, lol. On Thursday, June 8,

[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001051]: stderr redirection of the "time" utility

The following issue has been CLOSED. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1051 == Reported By:stephane Assigned To:

[1003.1(2013)/Issue7+TC1 0001051]: stderr redirection of the "time" utility

The following issue has been set as DUPLICATE OF issue 267. == http://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1051 == Reported By:stephane

RE: Access to old POSIX specifications (Was: s/2013/2016/g at https://www.opengroup.org/austin/papers/posix_faq.html)

Joseph M, What will you do with this old standard? Joe G -Original Message- From: Joseph Myers [mailto:j...@polyomino.org.uk] Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2017 1:18 PM To: Stephane Chazelas Cc: Geoff Clare ; austin-group-l@opengroup.org