On October 29, 2021 7:17:08 PM EDT, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open
Group wrote:
>If that
>is its sole purpose, it doesn't need to be standardised.
What's more puzzling to me is that this is clearly a "system administration"
utility, which has always been out of scope for 1003.2 and
On 10/29/21 6:09 PM, enh via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 5:45 PM Robert Elz wrote:
| it's definitely unfortunate that the -k option is not part of POSIX
Sorry, no idea what that is, all I know of fuser is what POSIX says about
it.
-k automates
On 10/29/21 5:45 PM, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
That spec requires stdout to be just an unseparated list of pids,
no white space, no terminating newline, just digits.
The SVR4 implementation (inherited by Solaris & illumos) writes white
space before each pid to stdou
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 5:45 PM Robert Elz wrote:
> Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:22:44 -0700
> From:enh
> Message-ID: zyrjcdvqgg6ick...@mail.gmail.com>
>
> | i've seen fuser used in scripts to provide a list of pids to iterate
> ps or
> | kill over,
>
> Written (in
Date:Sat, 30 Oct 2021 02:23:40 +0200
From:Steffen Nurpmeso
Message-ID: <20211030002340.gtkvv%stef...@sdaoden.eu>
| Dear Robert Elz, on the other hand
|
| #?127|unstable9s:$ /usr/xpg4/bin/sh -c -- "echo Robert, let's sally"
| Robert, lets sally
| #?0|u
Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:22:44 -0700
From:enh
Message-ID:
| i've seen fuser used in scripts to provide a list of pids to iterate ps or
| kill over,
Written (in the script) how, and with an fuser actually implemented
the way POSIX says to do it??
That spec requ
Robert Elz wrote in
<9905.1635549...@jinx.noi.kre.to>:
|Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:42:48 -0500
|From:Eric Blake
|Message-ID: <20211029214248.5rsezyh4wvgl2...@redhat.com>
|
|
|| Another thing to consider: if enough implementations fix things NOW to
|| use "--" in
i've seen fuser used in scripts to provide a list of pids to iterate ps or
kill over, or just as an extra bit of diagnostic information for failures
in automated tests. in particular, since it's available by default on macOS
as well as linux (and explicitly mentioned in POSIX), it's seen as the
por
The following issue has been SUBMITTED.
==
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1528
==
Reported By:steffen
Assigned To:
=
Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 16:42:48 -0500
From:Eric Blake
Message-ID: <20211029214248.5rsezyh4wvgl2...@redhat.com>
| Another thing to consider: if enough implementations fix things NOW to
| use "--" in system() and popen(), then by the time we actually DO
| release
There was a message on one of the NetBSD lists asking why
we don't have the POSIX standardised fuser command in NetBSD.
I'd never heard of fuser (I've at least heard of most of the
older *nix commands) so I went and read its POSIX man page.
What a disaster that thing is.
Its Rationale however is
On Sat, Oct 30, 2021 at 12:46:55AM +0700, Robert Elz via austin-group-l at The
Open Group wrote:
> Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:00:04 -0700
> From:Nick Stoughton
> Message-ID:
>
>
> | Just for reference, the C standard says:
>
> Thanks, it was a little hard to imagi
For anyone who cares, the (absurdly long) explanation I sent to
NetBSD users about the change to add the "--" to system() and popen()
(which has happened now) can be found at:
http://mail-index.netbsd.org/current-users/2021/10/29/msg041629.html
(use https: if you prefer, personally for this, I do
Robert Elz wrote in
<8552.1635508...@jinx.noi.kre.to>:
|Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:51:09 +0100
|From:"Andrew Josey via austin-group-l at The Open Group" \
|
|Message-ID: <5bf8909a-6cc2-4089-87c1-5fac762fa...@opengroup.org>
...
|| 0001440: System Interfaces Call
Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 10:00:04 -0700
From:Nick Stoughton
Message-ID:
| Just for reference, the C standard says:
Thanks, it was a little hard to imagine just how they would be
able to (with a straight face) talk about args to "sh" ...
| So I agree, we should ch
Just for reference, the C standard says:
> If string is not a null pointer, the *system* function passes the string
pointed to
> by *string* to that command processor to be executed in a manner which
the implementation shall
> document; this might then cause the program calling system to behave in
Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 13:47:59 + (UTC)
From:shwaresyst
Message-ID: <2020487850.342.1635515279...@mail.yahoo.com>
[Apologies: I sent this reply, just to Mark, a few minutes ago,
once again trapped by the evil "Reply-to" added by this list...
So, I am resending
This is felt required to get POSIX accurately describing what the C standard
version of system() requires, taking into account where sh differs from the
minimal requirements of the command shell in that standard. POSIX is as it is
because it was assumed no programmer would use a option switch ch
Date:Fri, 29 Oct 2021 09:51:09 +0100
From:"Andrew Josey via austin-group-l at The Open Group"
Message-ID: <5bf8909a-6cc2-4089-87c1-5fac762fa...@opengroup.org>
| The following interpretation is starting a 30 day review
|
| 0001440: System Interfaces Calling `sy
All
Enclosed are the minutes from yesterday’s call
regards
Andrew
-
Minutes of the 28th October 2021 Teleconference Austin-1174 Page 1 of 1
Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. 29th October 2021
Attendees:
Don Cragun, IEEE PASC OR
Nick Stoughton, Logitech/USE
All
The following interpretation is starting a 30 day review
0001440: System Interfaces Calling `system("-some-tool")` fails (although it is
a valid `sh` command)
Comments are due back no later than November 29 2021.
regards
Andrew
Andrew JoseyThe Open Group
A
The following issue has been UPDATED.
==
https://austingroupbugs.net/view.php?id=1440
==
Reported By:ciprian_craciun
Assigned To:
22 matches
Mail list logo
