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.
-- Hiroki
pgpuwCQ3RKR27.pgp
Description: PGP signature
