Austin Group Minutes of the 8 May Teleconference Austin-168 Page 1 of 1 Submitted by Andrew Josey, The Open Group. May 9, 2003 Attendees Andrew Josey, The Open Group Ulrich Drepper Don Cragun , Sun, PASC OR Nick Stoughton, USENIX, WG15 OR Mark Brown, IBM, TOG OR Joanna Farley, Sun The primary purpose of the call was to discuss the scope and purpose of a proposed TC2 (technical corrigendum 2). Andrew had circulated a strawman scope/purpose which was essentially the same as TC1. The consensus agreed that the strawman was fine, there was no reason for any change from what was done for TC1 and we should start the process to submit the paperwork to IEEE. Andrew noted that we need to do an initial sort of the aardvark , into categories and circulate for comment, and that should be followed by another telecon. There was some discussion over the future of WG15, and the desire for the ISO representation to continue - most probably by some appointee from the SC22 level where the work will be transferred. The call then picked up at the aardvark , concentrating on some items that had been open for some time. The materials are at: http://www.opengroup.org/austin/aardvark/finaltext/ XCU ---- XCU ERN 5 Accept as marked 1. We treat the original change request as an interpretation request (IR); not as a change to go into TC2 of the current standard. 2. We respond to the IR saying: A. the standard is clear (and therefore you can't do this and still conform), B. this issue will be forwarded to the sponsor for consideration in the next revision (code words for the standard is wrong), and C. have the sponsor indicate a future direction specifying that the next revision of the standard should change XCU6, P820, L31681-31683 from: "If either of the files dot or dot-dot are specified as the basename portion of an operand (that is, the final pathname component), rm shall write a diagnostic message to standard error and do nothing more with such operands." to something like: "If either of the files dot or dot-dot are specified as the basename portion of an operand (that is, the final pathname component) or if an operand resolves to the root directory, rm shall write a diagnostic message to standard error and do nothing more with such operands." The standard is clear/standard is wrong wording should allow implementations to make this change if and when they choose to do so sometime in the next five or so years. No change would be required until we start making changes to implement SUSv4, IEEE Std 1003.1-20xx (xx >= 05), and ISO/IEC 9945-[1234]:20xx (xx >= 05). I would like to have this interpretation apply to XCU3, XCU4, XCU4v2, XCU5, and POSIX.2-1992 as well but I'm not sure how to make that happen at this point. XSH --- XSH ERN 72 Accept ( Agree with the suggested action) XBD ------ XBD ERN 19 Accept as marked, number 1 suggest interpretations track XBD ERN 20 Accept XBD ERN 21 Accept Next meeting ------------ The next meeting is proposed to be May 22 at the regular timeslot. Andrew will update the aardvark reports on the web site with the latest information including new aardvark subsequently received.