Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-05-01 Thread Theo de Raadt
Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Marc Espie: > > > I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way > > sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard > > shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions. > > I think that

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-05-01 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Marc Espie: > I would also actually be fairly happy if we changed drastically the way > sh(1) and ksh(1) look. To me, sh(1) should be the (more or less) standard > shell documentation, AND ksh(1) should contain the differences/extensions. I think that is a terrible idea. Historically the

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-05-01 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Sat, May 01, 2021 at 04:33:08PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Jason McIntyre: > > > - i'm ok with the getopt.1 and ksh.1 parts > > - i'm not ok with the addition to sh.1 > > > > no one has really given a good reason why they think it should go into > > sh.1. i've given a few why i

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-05-01 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Jason McIntyre: > - i'm ok with the getopt.1 and ksh.1 parts > - i'm not ok with the addition to sh.1 > > no one has really given a good reason why they think it should go into > sh.1. i've given a few why i think it should not. My understanding is that sh.1 is a subset of ksh.1, describing the

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:42:12PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > my argument boils down to: sh(1) is small and has no examples. adding > > them changes the (deliberate) nature of the page. ksh(1) is what you > > read when you can;t

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Marc Espie: > > > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) > > Let's start the discussion with this instead. > > This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place, > and uses the

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:54:57PM +0200, Christian Weisgerber wrote: > Marc Espie: > > > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) > > Let's start the discussion with this instead. > > This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place, > and uses the

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Christian Weisgerber
Marc Espie: > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) Let's start the discussion with this instead. This puts the deprecation notice in getopt.1 in a prominent place, and uses the same snippet in sh.1 and ksh.1. Index: bin/ksh/ksh.1

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > my argument boils down to: sh(1) is small and has no examples. adding > them changes the (deliberate) nature of the page. ksh(1) is what you > read when you can;t get to sleep. > > why is it wrong to add your example to ksh(1)? why

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 03:28:42PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:07:55PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > > > Until a patch from naddy, I

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 04:07:55PM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) > > > > > > Unless I made some

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 02:44:01PM +0100, Jason McIntyre wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) > > > > Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1) > > manpage. > > > >

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Jason McIntyre
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 11:54:16AM +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) > > Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1) > manpage. > > It's likely some stronger wording might be adequate, I suspect some > of the

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Raf Czlonka
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:14:26PM BST, Marc Espie wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:03:00PM +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > > Hi Mark, > > > > You and me both ;^) > > > > Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is > > in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at 12:03:00PM +0100, Raf Czlonka wrote: > Hi Mark, > > You and me both ;^) > > Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is > in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in there, but a > utility[0]. Nope, it is a shell built-in... the "wording" of

Re: shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Raf Czlonka
Hi Mark, You and me both ;^) Until recently, I thought that getopt(1) was POSIX, whereas it is in fact getopts(1), and it is not a shell built-in there, but a utility[0]. [0] https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/getopts.html Cheers, Raf On Fri, Apr 30, 2021 at

shell manpage tweaks wrt getopt

2021-04-30 Thread Marc Espie
Until a patch from naddy, I wasn't even aware of getopts in sh(1) Unless I made some mistakes, this translates the example in getopt(1) manpage. It's likely some stronger wording might be adequate, I suspect some of the BUGS section in getopt(1) does not apply to the sh(1) built-in. Index: