Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-27 Thread M. Warner Losh
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED] attila! [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: : However, I do object to GNU's heavy handed removal of a : flag which is in extensive use. I don't have a problem : with the new syntax, but leave the old one intact I keep telling people we should hack sort

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-26 Thread Nick Hilliard
It's not like people didn't have nine years' advance warning to fix their scripts. When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? The man page in 4.x notes that -k is an alternative rather than the

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-25 Thread Bob Willcox
Funny, this argument suddenly reminds me of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galexy :-) Bob On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 05:01:29PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:11 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-25 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Bob Willcox writes: Funny, this argument suddenly reminds me of the Hitch Hikers Guide to the Galexy :-) I've gone of the idea of progress, it's over rated. :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-25 Thread Tim Kientzle
One possible solution to the sort problem: * Continue to accept the old syntax for now, but add a warning message, something like: Warning: sort +N is deprecated, use -k instead. * After a year, drop support for the old syntax. After staring at warning messages for a year, few

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:29:35 +1000, Tim Robbins wrote: A workaround might be to #undef _POSIX2_VERSION after #include'ing unistd.h in posixver.c but I don't think that would be correct. It's probably better Removing compatibility with +pos f.e. they just try to confirm POSIX, because +N

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Tim Robbins wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:43:38PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:17:41PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses... POSIX

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bill Fenner
Here's my suggested fix: stash% pwd /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/sort stash% cvs diff -uN cvs diff: Diffing . Index: posixver.c === RCS file: posixver.c diff -N posixver.c --- /dev/null 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00 - +++ posixver.c 24 Sep

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 13:30:11 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. I am most unhappy with this change. :-( It will be possible to have both variants, but +N is valid filename per POSIX, so

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Terry Lambert
Peter Wemm wrote: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. I am most unhappy with this change. :-( I'll say it again: unconditionally complying POSIX is an impediment to getting real work done. 8-(. I would be very happy

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 13:43:08 -0700, Bill Fenner wrote: Here's my suggested fix: Please, no. They do the right thing. You can bypass it setting _POSIX2_VERSION=199209 in the environment. -- Andrey A. Chernov http://ache.pp.ru/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bill Fenner
Please, no. They do the right thing. I guess there are varying definitions of what the right thing is. I don't think it's widely known that the +/- syntax was obsoleted. I am vaguely a standards weenie and I didn't know. Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:11 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. I am most unhappy with this change. :-( The time to complain about it was back in 1992when the old syntax was

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bill Fenner
Until sh, make, tar, and so on also drop behaviours that are not specified by POSIX, it's really silly to make sort drop them. It's not that the +x/-y argument syntax is not specified - it's that it's specifically disallowed. (I disagree with that restriction, but let's at least have the right

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 13:59:02 -0700, Bill Fenner wrote: Please, no. They do the right thing. I guess there are varying definitions of what the right thing is. I mean just: 1) We all agree targeting POSIX, so POSIX conformance is the right thing. 2) If we use _POSIX2_VERSION 2001* in our

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bill Fenner
It's not like people didn't have nine years' advance warning to fix their scripts. When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 13:30:11 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. I am most unhappy with this change. :-( The time to complain about it was back

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Andrey A. Chernov wrote: On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 13:30:11 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. I am most unhappy with this change. :-( It will be possible to have both variants, but +N

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Bill Fenner wrote: Here's my suggested fix: @@ -0,0 +1,8 @@ +/* + * Tell GNU sort(1) to implement the obsolete +1 -0 syntax even though + * it has been removed from the version of POSIX that the rest of + * the system conforms to. + */ +int posix2_version(void) { + return 0; +}

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Andrey A. Chernov
On Tue, Sep 24, 2002 at 14:39:01 -0700, Peter Wemm wrote: Bill Fenner wrote: Here's my suggested fix: +} Try something like this: If you want something like this, here is less broken way: --- lib/posixver.c.bak Fri Jun 7 11:24:45 2002 +++ lib/posixver.c Wed Sep 25 01:42:01

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:09:31 -0700, Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? It does not appear to have ever been properly documented. I don't object to maintaining

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Garrett Wollman
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:26:43 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Closed payware standards do not count as 'fair warning'. I still have never been able to see a posix standard. Go to a library. Or go to http://www.opengroup.org/ and register for free on-line access. -GAWollman To

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bill Fenner
I think a lot of people would be happier if we could maintain backwards compatability (and document the fact that they're extremely obsolete) for a few more releases. Despite the fact that the main UNIX reference that I use was published in 1984, I don't actually want everything to stay the

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Garance A Drosihn
At 6:02 PM -0400 9/24/02, Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? It does not appear to have ever been properly

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:09:31 -0700, Bill Fenner [EMAIL PROTECTED] s aid: When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? It does not appear to have ever been properly documented.

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Peter Wemm
Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:26:43 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Closed payware standards do not count as 'fair warning'. I still have never been able to see a posix standard. Go to a library. Or go to http://www.opengroup.org/ and register for free

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Mark Valentine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Fenner) Date: Tue 24 Sep, 2002 Subject: Re: Who broke sort(1) ? When's the first time the FreeBSD sort(1) man page mentioned that this syntax was deprecated? Can we at least start from there? I echo this sentiment. Ideally, two 4.x releases would document

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Giorgos Keramidas
On 2002-09-24 13:30, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third party scripts that use +n syntax. And ports. Lots of them. Dozens of them :( I just noticed that textproc/ispell doesn't work anymore for me. More will appear

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Mark Valentine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Garrett Wollman) Date: Tue 24 Sep, 2002 Subject: Re: Who broke sort(1) ? I don't object to maintaining backwards compatibility for a few more releases (even if the application writers are the ones at fault), Umm, their fault may simply have been that they wrote

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Mark Valentine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Wemm) Date: Tue 24 Sep, 2002 Subject: Re: Who broke sort(1) ? How many successful widely distributed OS's are there that does not allow sort +N as a numeric argument by default? (I'm sure somebody can dig up an obscure linux distribution or some

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Bruce Evans
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: Garrett Wollman wrote: On Tue, 24 Sep 2002 14:26:43 -0700, Peter Wemm [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Closed payware standards do not count as 'fair warning'. I still have never been able to see a posix standard. Go to a library. Or go to

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Mark Valentine
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Evans) Date: Wed 25 Sep, 2002 Subject: Re: Who broke sort(1) ? On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote: A 1991 draft version is still available at: http://www.funet.fi/pub/doc/posix/posix Nice directory listing. s/http/ftp/ and s/www/ftp/ and I get

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-24 Thread Steve Kargl
On Wed, Sep 25, 2002 at 12:06:45AM +, attila! wrote: However, I do object to GNU's heavy handed removal of a flag which is in extensive use. I don't have a problem with the new syntax, but leave the old one intact -k, --key=POS1[,POS2] start a

Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-22 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses... -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-22 Thread Poul-Henning Kamp
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Poul-Henning Kamp writes: flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses... Ok, nailed it down. this commit, is the culprit. I guess it changes the fts ABI in some subtle way because backing the change

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-22 Thread Steve Kargl
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:17:41PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses... POSIX via wollman. See revision 1.58 of /usr/include/unistd.h, i.e., /* Define the versions we target for

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-22 Thread Tim Robbins
On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:43:38PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:17:41PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses... POSIX via wollman. See revision

Re: Who broke sort(1) ?

2002-09-22 Thread Mike Barcroft
Tim Robbins [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 01:43:38PM -0700, Steve Kargl wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2002 at 10:17:41PM +0200, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: flat# date | sort +5n sort: open failed: +5n: No such file or directory This breaks the build in libncurses...