svn commit: r364449 - head/bin/ls

[Hiroki Sato]

Gordon Bergling <gbe at freebsd.org> wrote
  in <20200824085223.GA28970 at 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.

-- Hiroki
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 342 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/attachments/20200825/eeb681a3/attachment.sig>