Re: git: b3dfd5d59c4a - main - rmdir.1: Document non-POSIX -v option

On 2026-06-19 17:50 -04:00 EDT, "Dag-Erling Smørgrav" <des@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> Alexander Ziaee <ziaee@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>> > Alexander Ziaee <ziaee@FreeBSD.org> writes:
>> > > +.Pp
>> > > +The
>> > > +.Fl v
>> > > +option is an extension to that specification.
>> > This is not the wording we normally use for these cases.
>> We use in in rm(1), but we do not have a style guide and I am not
>> aware of a consistent pattern. What would you prefer?
> 
> Right, so I thought we'd standardized on
> 
>     The
>     .Fl v
>     option is a non-standard extension.

Oh, I forgot about that.

> but it's actually more varied than that, some pages say “a FreeBSD
> extension” or “a BSD extension” or even “a GNU extension” in cases where
> we copied GNU's homework, and some just say “an extension”.  We should
> clean that up.
> 
> There is precedent for “an extension to that specification” but only in
> pages where the previous sentence uses the word “specification”.  I
> would prefer not standardizing on a wording that relies on external
> context.

Okay, let's put this in mdoc(7) so I don't forget again and we have something
to point to. To that end I have proposed the following revision:

https://reviews.freebsd.org/D57690

> Furthermore, rmdir(1) does not follow the standard pattern, so maybe we
> should start by fixing that:
> 
>     The
>     .Nm
>     utility is expected to conform to the
>     .St -p1003.1-2008
>     specification.
> 
> That's not the latest version of the standard, but we've made no effort
> to update our codebase for 1003.1-2024, so it's the most recent one we
> can plausibly claim conformance to (although in this particular case the
> standard hasn't changed so we can probably go ahead with 1003.1-2024).
> 
> Finally, the SEE ALSO section should reference rmdir(2).

The proposed changed LGTM, feel free to commit (either 2008 or 2024) with
`Reviewed by: ziaee`.

Best,
Alex