[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has a resolution that has been APPLIED. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has been UPDATED. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 0001529. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 163. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has been set as RELATED TO issue 252. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

Wayne Pollock wrote, on 01 Nov 2021: > > > For context, the example was . nohup should be, > > and as far as I know, is required to support invocations as > > , treating that first <--> as the end of the options. The > > GNU extension that options and the end-of-options indicator can also > >

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

On Mon, Nov 1, 2021 at 12:02 PM Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > On 11/1/2021 9:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via > austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > >> Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The standard does specify exceptions to the Utility Syntax Guidelines in the OPTIONS section of each utility that needs an exception. For example, if you look at the start of the OPTIONS section in the description of the c99 utility, you will find: The c99 utility shall conform to XBD

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

... For context, the example was . nohup should be, and as far as I know, is required to support invocations as , treating that first <--> as the end of the options. The GNU extension that options and the end-of-options indicator can also follow operands is as far as I know not supported by

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

On 11/1/2021 9:12 AM, Eric Blake wrote: On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not accept or delete the first "--"? For the example to work, nohup must not

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 08:21:55PM -0400, Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: > Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not > accept or > delete the first "--"? For the example to work, nohup must not discard the > "--". > But might it? I'm

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

On 31/10/2021 01:21, Wayne Pollock via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote: Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not accept or delete the first "--"?  For the example to work, nohup must not discard the "--". But might it? For context, the example was .

Re: [1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

Is it guaranteed that on conforming systems nohup (and friends) must not accept or delete the first "--"? For the example to work, nohup must not discard the "--". But might it? Section 1.4 "Utility Description Defaults" of the Introduction states "... Default Behavior: When this section is

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue NEEDS AN INTERPRETATION. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

A NOTE has been added to this issue. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To:

[1003.1(2016/18)/Issue7+TC2 0001440]: Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is a valid `sh` command)

The following issue has been SUBMITTED. == https://www.austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440 == Reported By:ciprian_craciun Assigned To: