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 c
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
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
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.
>
>
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 buil
On Mon, Sep 23, 2002 at 12:29:35 +1000, Tim Robbins wrote:
>
> A workaround might be to #undef _POSIX2_VERSION after #include'ing
> 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 can b
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...
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 200
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
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 hap
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 "unsub
>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
< 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
labeled ``deprecated'' by P1003.2, or in 1999 when the revisio
>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
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
>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 freebsd-
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < 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
> labeled ``deprecated'
"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 va
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
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 01:4
< 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 backwards compatibility for a few more
releases (even if the appli
< 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 Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe fr
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 same
At 6:02 PM -0400 9/24/02, Garrett Wollman wrote:
>< 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 backw
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < 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.
>
> I don't object to maintaining backwards compatibilit
Garrett Wollman wrote:
> < 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.
The 1992 version hasn't been available onli
> 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, tw
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 appe
> 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"
> 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 obscur
On Tue, 24 Sep 2002, Peter Wemm wrote:
> Garrett Wollman wrote:
> > < 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-lin
> 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
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]
> s
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:
> < said:
>
> > Oh man, this is going to suck. There are thousands and thousands of third
> > party scripts that use +n syntax.
>
> > I a
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 sin
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 peo
> >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
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 s
38 matches
Mail list logo
