On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 11:21:47PM +0900, Hiroki Sato wrote:
> Gordon Bergling <g...@freebsd.org> wrote
> in <20200824085223.ga28...@lion.0xfce3.net>:
>
> gb> thanks for your feedback. I can only define POSIX.1-200{1,8} or -susv4.
> So what
> gb> do you think about the following STANDARDS section?
> gb>
> gb> For the options that are non-existing I could correct them to -2001 and
> mention
> gb> also -susv4.
> gb>
> gb> STANDARDS
> gb> With the exception of options -g, -n and -o, the ls utility conforms
> to
> gb> IEEE Std 1003.1-2001 (“POSIX.1”) and Version 4 of the Single UNIX
> gb> Specification (“SUSv4”). The options -B, -D, -G, -I, -T, -U, -W,
> -Z, -b,
> gb> -h, -w, -y and -, are compatible extensions not defined in IEEE Std
> gb> 1003.1-2001 (“POSIX.1”).
>
> It might be a bit tedious, but just adding -2008 looks good to me
> like the following:
>
> |.St -p1003.1-2001
> |and
> |.St -p1003.1-2008 .
>
> p1003.1-2004 is a subset of SUSv3 (and -2008 is one of SUSv4), so
> using p1003.1-YYYY consistently sounds less confusing when describing
> the conformance within the subsets.
>
> Regarding the non-standard extensions, I am not sure what
> "compatible" means. Some of them are extensions commonly seen on
> other BSD-derived OSes, some are available only on FreeBSD, and some
> have the same names with GNU's counterpart but different meanings.
> Is just mentioning "...are non-standard extensions" with no
> specification name sufficient and easier? I have no strong opinion
> on that part, but this is just my two cents.
>
> -- HirokiI followed your suggestions and created the following differential for further discussions. https://reviews.freebsd.org/D26210 --Gordon
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
