Hey David. Thanks for your efforts :-)
On Fri, 2024-12-06 at 16:22 +0200, David Weinehall wrote: > I just need to come up with a good name for the POSIX.1-2024 package. > Any suggestions? Well, first question would be: Are the current package names proper? >From what I found: https://unix.org/what_is_unix/single_unix_specification.html#single The SUS is: - POSIX (i.e. XBD, XSH, XCU, XRAT) plus: - Networking Services - X/Open Curses but the latter two seem to be part of the susv2 package, but not of susv3 and susv4 anymore, or are they? susv2: ****** Seems to actually be "The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2", where, AFAIK, POSIX standards hat no -<year> yet, but were merely POSIX.1, POSIX.1b, ... That would also match what's written at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Versions Still a better name for the package might be sus-v2. susv3: ****** Talks about being "The Open Group Base Specifications Issue 6 IEEE Std 1003.1, 2004 Edition". (No Networking Services or X/Open Curses) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/POSIX#Versions_after_1997 misses that, but rather says SUS v2 would equate to "POSIX.1-2001 (or IEEE Std 1003.1-2001)". But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#2001:_Single_UNIX_Specification,_version_3,_POSIX.1-2001 mentions it, but it's not clear to me, whether the 2004 edition, was ever "named" SUS v3, or whether that always remained at the 2001 edition. https://unix.org/version3/ still talks about the 2001 edition, but lists the TCs which ultimately made up the 2004 edition. So I think already because of the missing Networking Services and X/Open Curses, susv3 is not the right name but we should rather name it either posix.1-2004 (which I personally would prefer over the IEEE or ISO/IEC names). Ideally we could of course package both, posix.1-2001 and posix.1-2004 ... perhaps the former with the TC1 and TC2 if these are available. Just for reference purposes. susv4: ****** Here, the package already contains the 2016 edition (which is POSIX.1- 2008 + TC and TC2, whereas the package's dir name only indicates TC2) AND the 2017 edition (which the package 2018 editions... and also wikipedia and even the standard text uses both... probably POSIX is 2017 but base specifications is 2018?). Again, they all seem to lack Networking Services and X/Open Curses, so neither of them is really the full SUS v4, though here it seems as if SUS v4 was actually also updated to the 2017 edition: https://unix.org/version4/ Not sure what to do here... split them up? Name the one posix.1-2016 (which is the 2008 edition + TC1 + TC2; there was also a 2013 edition which is 2008 + TC1, but possibly that was never an official 2013 edition) and the other posix.1-2017? And the new one posix.1-2024? I think there is some benefit to include as many of the historical versions as possible. We might have a meta-package like posix.1-latest or just posix.1, which depends on the most recent one. We could also just merge all the historic ones into one package (though I rather dislike that idea). Also, we could add "-doc",... some packages seem to do that, like harden-doc. But personally I think that's rather a misnomer, as foo-doc is the documentation of foo, which doesn't work in our POSIX case (neither in the harden-doc case). Some packages (e.g. doc-rfc-*) use the doc-xxx style. But I'm also just fine with posix.1* Cheers, Chris.
