> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 12:11:42 -0500 > From: Jason King <jason at ansipunx.net> > > On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 11:49 AM, Glenn Skinner <glenn.skinner at sun.com> > wrote: >> ? ?Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 14:05:29 -0700 >> ? ?From: "Garrett D'Amore" <gdamore at sun.com> ... ... ... >> >> But before I give my +1, a quick question: ?Have you verified that >> adding the new flags to the /usr/xpg*/bin/ls variants is ok from the >> standpoint of standards conformance? ?If the answer is affirmative, >> I'm happy with the proposal. > > Unfortunately I'm not a standards language lawyer, so it's difficult > for me to know what things I need to look out for. > > The one thing I'm aware of is the cmdline option processing (and to > not reorder arguments). ?I was told using getopt_long_only(3c) avoids > this issue (which is what the code does).
POSIX standards and the SUS specifications allow implementations to provide additional options. According to the CLIP case (PSARC/1999/645), the following are required: 1. Every long option must have a short (single character) equivalent, and 2. optional option arguments are not allowed. I don't see short option equivalents for --block-size, --si, --color (with optional option-argument), --file-type, and --time-style (with optional option-argument). The ARC can allow exemptions for violations, but the exemptions have to be requested and the violations need to be noted in the man page. Also, there still is no man page in the case directory (at least not visible outside of Sun), but the one-pager shows -w=NN as a new flag. There should not be an '=' separating a short option from its option-argument. - Don
