Document Number: AUSTIN/33 Title: XCU D1 Aardvark Change Request Report Revision Date: 1999-07-25 Source: Andrew Josey, Chair Action: for review This report contains the dispositions of the aardvark comments submitted against the XCU Draft 1. Aardvark Summary Table ______________________ ERN 1 Accept as marked ERN 2 Accept ERN 3 Accept ERN 4 Duplicate of 1 ERN 5 Accept as marked ERN 6 Accept as marked ERN 7 Reject ERN 8 Accept as marked ERN 9 Accept as marked ERN 10 Accept ERN 11 Accept ERN 12 Accept ERN 13 Accept ERN 14 Accept ERN 15 Accept ERN 16 Accept ERN 17 Reject ERN 18 Reject ERN 19 Accept ERN 20 Duplicate of 21 ERN 21 Accept ERN 22 Accept ERN 23 Accept as marked ERN 24 Accept ERN 25 Accept ERN 26 Accept ERN 27 Accept ERN 28 Accept ERN 29 Accept ERN 30 Accept ERN 31 Accept ERN 32 Accept as marked ERN 33 Duplicate of 34 ERN 34 Accept ERN 35 Accept ERN 36 Accept ERN 37 Accept ERN 38 Accept as marked ERN 39 Accept as marked ERN 40 Accept ERN 41 Accept ERN 42 Accept ERN 43 Reject ERN 44 Accept as marked ERN 45 Accept ERN 46 Accept ERN 47 Accept as marked ERN 48 Accept ERN 49 Accept ERN 50 Accept ERN 51 Accept ERN 52 Accept as marked ERN 53 Duplicate of 54 ERN 54 Accept ERN 55 Duplicate of 56 ERN 56 Accept ERN 57 Accept as marked ERN 58 Accept ERN 59 Accept ERN 60 Accept ERN 61 Accept ERN 62 Accept ERN 63 Accept ERN 64 Accept ERN 65 Accept ERN 66 Accept ERN 67 Accept ERN 68 Reject ERN 69 Accept ERN 70 Duplicate of 69 ERN 71 Accept ERN 72 Accept ERN 73 Accept as marked ERN 74 Accept ERN 75 Accept ERN 76 Accept ERN 77 Accept as marked ERN 78 Accept ERN 79 Accept ERN 80 Accept as marked ERN 81 Accept as marked ERN 82 Accept ERN 83 Accept as marked ERN 84 Accept ERN 85 Reject ERN 86 Accept ERN 87 Accept ERN 88 Accept ERN 89 Accept ERN 90 Accept ERN 91 Accept ERN 92 Accept ERN 93 Accept as marked ERN 94 Accept ERN 95 Accept ERN 96 Accept ERN 97 Accept ERN 98 Accept ERN 99 Reject ERN 100 Accept as marked ERN 101 Accept ERN 102 Accept ERN 103 Accept ERN 104 Accept as marked ERN 105 Reject ERN 106 Accept ERN 107 Accept as marked ERN 108 Accept ERN 109 Accept ERN 110 Accept ERN 111 Accept as marked ERN 112 Accept ERN 113 Accept ERN 114 Reject ERN 115 Accept ERN 116 Accept ERN 117 Reject ERN 118 Accept ERN 119 Accept ERN 120 Accept ERN 121 Accept as marked ERN 122 Accept as marked ERN 123 Accept as marked ERN 124 Duplicate of 119 ERN 125 Accept ERN 126 Accept ERN 127 Accept as marked ERN 128 Accept ERN 129 Accept ERN 130 Accept ERN 131 Accept ERN 132 Accept as marked ERN 133 Accept ERN 134 Accept ERN 135 Accept ERN 136 Accept ERN 137 Accept ERN 138 Accept as marked ERN 139 Duplicate of 138 ERN 140 Accept as marked ERN 141 Accept as marked ERN 142 Accept ERN 143 Accept ERN 144 Accept as marked ERN 145 Accept ERN 146 Accept as marked ERN 147 Accept as marked ERN 148 Accept ERN 149 Accept ERN 150 Accept ERN 151 Accept ERN 152 Accept as marked ERN 153 Reject ERN 154 Accept ERN 155 Reject ERN 156 Accept ERN 157 Accept as marked ERN 158 Accept ERN 159 Accept ERN 160 Accept as marked ERN 161 Accept as marked ERN 162 Accept as marked ERN 163 Accept as marked ERN 164 Accept ERN 165 Accept ERN 166 Accept as marked ERN 167 Accept ERN 168 Accept as marked ERN 169 Accept ERN 170 Reject ERN 171 Reject ERN 172 Duplicate of 170 ERN 173 Accept as marked ERN 174 Reject ERN 175 Accept as marked ERN 176 Accept ERN 177 Duplicate of 170/171 ERN 178 Accept as marked ERN 179 Accept ERN 180 Accept ERN 181 Reject ERN 182 Accept ERN 183 Reject ERN 184 Accept ERN 185 Accept ERN 186 Duplicate of 185 ERN 187 Accept as marked ERN 188 Accept ERN 189 Duplicate of 134 ERN 190 Accept ERN 191 Accept as marked ERN 192 Accept as marked ERN 193 Accept as marked ERN 194 Accept as marked ERN 195 Accept as marked ERN 196 Accept ERN 197 Accept ERN 198 Accept ERN 199 Reject ERN 200 Accept Accept as marked ERN 201 Accept as marked ERN 202 Duplicate of 201 ERN 203 Accept ERN 204 Accept ERN 205 Accept ERN 206 Accept ERN 207 Accept as marked ERN 208 Accept ERN 209 Accept ERN 210 Reject ERN 211 Accept ERN 212 Accept ERN 213 Duplicate of 212 ERN 214 Accept ERN 215 Accept ERN 216 Accept ERN 217 Accept ERN 218 Accept ERN 219 Accept ERN 220 Accept ERN 221 Accept ERN 222 Reject ERN 223 Accept ERN 224 Reject ERN 225 Accept ERN 226 Accept as marked ERN 227 Accept ERN 228 Accept ERN 229 Accept ERN 230 Accept ERN 231 Accept as marked ERN 232 Accept ERN 233 Reject ERN 234 Accept as marked ERN 235 Accept as marked ERN 236 Accept as marked ERN 237 Accept as marked ERN 238 Accept as marked ERN 239 Accept as marked ERN 240 Accept ERN 241 Accept as marked ERN 242 Accept as marked ERN 243 Accept as marked ERN 244 Accept as marked ERN 245 Accept as marked ERN 246 Reject ERN 247 Reject ERN 248 Accept ERN 249 Accept ERN 250 Reject ERN 251 Duplicate of 171 ERN 252 Reject ERN 253 Accept as marked ERN 254 Accept ERN 255 Accept as marked ERN 256 Accept as marked ERN 257 Accept as marked ERN 258 Accept ERN 259 Reject ERN 260 Accept ERN 261 Reject ERN 262 Reject ERN 263 Accept as marked ERN 264 Reject ERN 265 Accept as marked ERN 266 Reject ERN 267 Reject ERN 268 Reject ERN 269 Accept as marked ERN 270 Accept as marked ERN 271 Accept ERN 272 Accept as marked ERN 273 Reject ERN 274 Accept as marked ERN 275 Accept as marked ERN 276 Accept as marked ERN 277 Reject ERN 278 Accept as marked ERN 279 Accept as marked ERN 280 Accept ERN 281 Accept as marked ERN 282 Accept as marked ERN 283 Accept ERN 284 Accept ERN 285 Accept as marked ERN 286 Accept as marked ERN 287 Accept ERN 288 Accept as marked ERN 289 Reject ERN 290 Reject ERN 291 Accept ERN 292 Accept ERN 293 Accept ERN 294 Reject ERN 295 Reject ERN 296 Accept as marked ERN 297 Accept as marked ERN 298 Accept ERN 299 Accept ERN 300 OPEN ERN 301 Accept as marked ERN 302 Accept as marked ERN 303 Accept as marked ERN 304 Reject ERN 305 Accept ERN 306 Reject ERN 307 Accept ERN 308 OPEN ERN 309 Accept as marked ERN 310 Accept as marked ERN 311 Accept as marked ERN 312 Accept ERN 313 Reject ERN 314 Reject ERN 315 Accept as marked ERN 316 Accept as marked ERN 317 Reject ERN 318 Accept ERN 319 Duplicate of 317 ERN 320 Accept as marked ERN 321 Accept ERN 322 Accept as marked ERN 323 Accept as marked ERN 324 OPEN ERN 325 Reject ERN 326 Reject ERN 327 Accept ERN 328 Accept as marked ERN 329 Accept ERN 330 Accept as marked ERN 331 Accept ERN 332 Accept ERN 333 Duplicate of 332 ERN 334 Accept ERN 335 OPEN ERN 336 Reject ERN 337 Accept as marked ERN 338 Accept ERN 339 Duplicate of 338 ERN 340 Reject ERN 341 Accept as marked ERN 342 OPEN ERN 343 Accept as marked ERN 344 Accept ERN 345 Accept as marked ERN 346 Accept as marked ERN 347 Accept ERN 348 Accept ERN 349 Accept as marked ERN 350 Reject* ERN 351 Accept ERN 352 Accept as marked ERN 353 Reject ERN 354 Reject* ERN 355 OPEN ERN 356 Accept ERN 357 Reject ERN 358 Accept as marked ERN 359 Accept ERN 360 Accept ERN 361 Accept as marked ERN 362 Reject ERN 363 Accept as marked ERN 364 Accept as marked ERN 365 Accept as marked ERN 366 Accept as marked ERN 367 Reject ERN 368 Accept as marked ERN 369 Accept ERN 370 Accept as marked ERN 371 Accept ERN 372 Accept as marked ERN 373 Accept as marked ERN 374 Accept ERN 375 OPEN ERN 376 Reject DETAILED DISPOSITIONS _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 1 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 373) [DWC-XCU-140] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accepted and addressed as part of project planning part of the meeting. See the meeting minutes and project schedule for more information. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: (Lack of time.) Given the numerous editorial and technical problems I have found while reviewing this draft (as noted in my other comments and objections), I have not had enough time to review the entire document. Note that the following objections were found as a result of tracking down problems found earlier. They do not imply that the rest of the draft up to those points have been reviewed. Action: Please review the rest of the draft (from the description of the env utility in Chapter 4 through the end of the draft) for problems similar to those described in my editorial comments DWC-XCU-1 and DWC-XCU-3 and in my comments DWC-XCU-21 and DWC-XCU-97 and review the rationale moved into this draft from POSIX.2 to be sure that it is still current. Allow a longer review period for the next draft. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 2 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 234) [DWC-XCU-1] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 0 Line: 0 Section: 0 Problem: (varying styles of -) In the discussion of default behavior in OPTIONS subsections in Section 1.10 on P19, L536 and L537 you use an em dash or an en dash to denote options and the "--" operand used to separate options from operands. On P19, L542 you use a thin dash. In most of the utility descriptions, you also use a thin dash. The description of the unset special built-in on P121 uses the wide dash consistently, except on P121, L4073. All places in the draft that use "-" as a lead-in to an option and all uses of the "--" operand should use the same wide dashes that are used on P19, L536 and P121, L4052. Action: Globally change all this dashes in the draft used to demarcate options, in the "--" operand, and used in other places in commands to match the dash characters used on P19, L536 and on P121, L4075. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 3 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 10) [DT-XCU-6] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note that no specific action is specified for this ERN, assume covered elsewhere) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Ancient history: in the intervening 10-15 years, some of the rationale has gone stale, and should simply be deleted (or significantly rewritten to actually contribute to the standard of today). I've flagged these as simply "Ancient History" with an action of Delete, but as above, I'm flexible. In general (and I didn't mark all of these by any means) discussions of the form "the Korn shell did this and the System V shell did that" and "BSD...System...that" are not very interesting at this remove, and should be deleted. (The words "Korn" and "BSD" and "System V" should appear in NO normative (or possible to confuse with normative) text.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 4 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 5) [DT-XCU-1] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_1 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: Schedule: It took me roughly 50 hours to review this document and prepare my objections. XSI, being larger, took longer, and there was XBD. Let's assume 120 hours total effort, and I can't say I did as good a job as I would have liked. The draft was ready roughly 6 weeks before the deadline. That's 20 hours a week spent reviewing the draft, which given that most of us have "real jobs" to perform as well is simply too much. The next draft will probably be much larger (and much changed) so for a while at least things will NOT get easier with each draft. The reviewers need more time (or at least I do) to do a quality job, at least if it's not their full-time job. Action: Make the draft available MUCH earlier (say 10 or better 15 weeks). I know, some will procrastinate to the last minute anyway, but it at least makes it possible to do a good job without exhausting the reviewers and irritating their families. I also recognize that this will put a crimp into the planned schedule, but I suspect it's a "pay me now or pay me later". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 5 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 7) [DT-XCU-3] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Agree that the text does need careful review, especially the shell command language chapter where the base document has taken much rationale from POSIX.2 and put it into the the normative text at the moment. This chapter will be specifically reworked for the next draft, and the default approach will be to try and follow POSIX.2 for the divider between normative and informative text. In general other cases will be taken individually. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: The original POSIX.2 was very careful to separate rationale from normative text. This draft has taken POSIX.2 rationale, scrambled it with the normative text, and created a document that's not really a standard. I don't object to the inclusion of explanatory materials, but it needs to be absolutely clear what text is intended as normative, and what text is not. 1) I have noticed a goodly number of places where this appears to have happened. They're listed simply as line number ranges below. However, I'm quite sure I haven't caught all of them. 2) The action is quite simple, if arduous: compare all text in this document with the corresponding .2 text: - If it was rationale, delete it in the normative sections of this document. (Make sure the deleted text appears as rationale.) - If it's new text, determine of it's rationale (or explanation/example) and move it appropriately. - (It's perfectly reasonable to propose something that was rationale be made into normative text, but that's an exception.) In the list below, if there's a 2d column, it indicates where the moved rationale is repeated in the RATIONALE section. The absence of a 2d column simply indicates I didn't notice it. I'm quite sure I didn't catch all instances of this. 1228-1241 1331-1333 1342-1346 (Redundant, but maybe not a copy.) 1367-1383 (Should be EXAMPLE). 1406-1408 1421-1423 1442-1443 1449-1450 1590-1591 1690-1709 (s.b. Example?) 1736-1748 1749-1750 1764-1765 1754-1757 1766-1769 1779-1782 With much earlier text; may be OK? 1783-1790 1892-1895 Mostly, rat is redundant, but needs thought. 1945-1962 1992-1999 s.b. Example. 2397-2415 s.b. Example. 2498-2501 2692-2695 2691-2700 2719-2721 2725-2726 2759-2762 2774-2777 2836-2837 2928-2929 3191-3196 3206-3211 3197-3199 3232-3239 3339-3341 3373-3375 3694-3695 3710-3711 3813 3909 3990-3991 4025-4026 9991-9992 10056-10057 12637-12640 13397-13400 14021-14025 14034-14036 15620-15624 15636-15638 19987-19991 20037-20043 (Parts of the latter still apply.) 20684 20811 28686 20816 20690 20840 21787 21823 22598 22609 23391 23428 25669 25680 26591 27098 Action: Cull duplicates (and search for more). Be sure normative text is clearly normative. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 6 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 6) [DT-XCU-2] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The issue was acknowledged by the review group and will be discussed as part of the style discussions that are ongoing. Its anticipated that this issue will be addressed in the next draft and we look for further feedback at that time. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: It's difficult to be "polite" under the circumstances, but I'll do the best I can: I find the quality of the the editorial work in XCU to be less than impressive. The number of mechanically applied changes that were not checked for making sense, the number of typos in what purports to be a fairly mature document, the number of places where changes were made without thought (in particular the massively long list about redundant rationale below) made doing an already arduous and time consuming task all that much more difficult. In addition, this document needs to be compared against the POSIX approved .2 standards (and XSH against .1, and XBD against both) to determine what additional omissions or unflagged changes beyond those noted here (or in other ballots) have occurred. I have not done so, simply because the time involved is huge, given the number of gratuitous changes made to the original .2 text. (E.g. font changes (many done wrong) that have seriously compromised the readability of the original, particularly w.r.t. the use of the constant width font.) (The objection I recently submitted against XBD about the reservation of -W shows how critical that comparison is to the continued credibility of this standard!) One of the objectives I completely missed this time was going through all the marginal notations, and deciding which way I think they should be resolved for the final document. This is a task that needs to be parceled out to as many members of the Austin group as possible, since if done well it only need be done once. Action: Assign comparison team to next draft, to check accuracy of prior standard text. (If its determined that shalls have to be restored, it may make sense to postpone this until that task has been accomplished.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 7 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 8) [DT-XCU-4] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject___X_ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is rejected as there is no specific action, as the action says its assumed this is covered elsewhere. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: There are a number of places where there were battles of historical usage between the BSD and System V camps. The competitive landscape has changed a lot in the 10 to 15 years since these decisions were originally made. I don't myself know what the current status might be on many of these, but they should be reevaluated to determine if a stronger standard (and thus one more useful to programmers) is now possible. I've filed short "is it time to..." objections at those places I noticed where topics should be re-opened. Unless I explicitly say so, I don't have a strong opinion on which way it should go. Note also that this has already been (rather presumptively) done by the inclusion of System V features in this draft. Some I find reasonable changes, and have not commented upon. However, I have objected to others, PARTICULARLY those where there was a good reason (not "we can't reach a compromise") for excluding the feature in the original POSIX.2. Action: Taken in other objections, but there are probably more I missed. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 8 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 9) [DT-XCU-5] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The concerns have been duly noted and the work is in progress. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 1 Line: 1 Section: all Problem: Related to the above: there are places where the rationale is now nonsense (it contradicts the main body). Where I've noted those (without other comment) I'm objecting to the inconsistency. However, the other Austin Group members should consider using those as flags to determine if they agree with the change implied at the marked point. Although as a matter of form, I recommend deleting the inconsistent rationale, deleting the change that makes it inconsistent would equally satisfy my objection. (As would a lot of other things.) Action: Austin group members note possible concerns. Delete nonsense rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 9 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 235) [DWC-XCU-2] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept as action below and also delete "and functions" on line 206 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 9-12 Line: 204,214,226,235-236,308,317 Section: 1.6.2,1.6.2. Problem: (Relationship to Other Documents) In the rest of this document set, references to documents in the set are listed as "this document", "XBD specification", "XCU specification", or "XSH specification". But, in these sections you refer to "POSIX Shell and Utilities" instead. The use should be consistent throughout the set. Action: Change "conforming to POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P9, L204 to "conforming to this document". Change "processes in POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P9, L214 to "processes in this document". Change "conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities systems" on P9, L226 to "systems conforming to this document". Change "a conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities implementation" on P10, L235- 236 to "an implementation conforming to this document". Change "conforming POSIX Shell and Utilities implementations" on P11, L308 to "implementations conforming to this document". Change "POSIX Shell and Utilities conformant systems" on P12, L317 to "systems conforming to this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 10 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 236) [DWC-XCU-3] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 14 Line: 408 Section: 1.8 Problem: (Utility Limits) In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. This is a global issue and should be corrected each time it happens. Later editorial comments will note the places I have found, but please correct any other places I miss. Action: Change "see getconf" on P14, L408 to "see getconf on page 417". Make similar corrections to other places in this draft that are of the same form. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 11 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 237) [DWC-XCU-4] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 20 Line: 622-623 Section: 1.10 Problem: (Utility Description Defaults: ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES) The XSI marking and the shaded text that goes along with it should appear on the same line. Action: Move the XSI margin marking on P20, L622 down one line to be on the same line as the shaded "NLSPATH" text. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 12 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 238) [DWC-XCU-5] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 28 Line: 870 Section: 2.1.2 Problem: (Documentation) I don't believe you need a cross reference to the subsection you're in. Action: Change "this subsection (Section 2.1.2 on page 27)" on P28, L870 to "this subsection". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 13 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 239) [DWC-XCU-6] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 33,34 Line: 1065,1066,1069,1070,1075,1109,1110,1113,1114 Section: 2.2.1,2.2.4 Problem: (Strictly Conforming POSIX & XSI Shell and Utilities Applications) Most of the sentences in the numbered lists in these two sections (2.2.1 and 2.2.4) are missing the terminating periods. Action: Add a period to the end of P33, L1065. Add a period to the end of P33, L1066. Add a period to the end of P33, L1069. Add a period to the end of P33, L1070. Add a period to the end of P33, L1075. Add a period to the end of P34, L1109. Add a period to the end of P34, L1110. Add a period to the end of P34, L1113. Add a period to the end of P34, L1114. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 14 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 240) [DWC-XCU-7] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 37 Line: 1137-1139 Section: 3.1 Problem: (Shell Introduction) The paragraph on P37, L1137-1139 was rationale in POSIX.2 and is also included in rationale here on L1161-1163. It doesn't need to be here twice. Action: Delete P37, L1137-1139. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 15 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 11) [DT-XCU-7] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 37 Line: 1138 Section: 3.1 Problem: English. Action: "as the first line" -> "as the first two characters of the file". (Else it implies that it's the whole first line we're talking about.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 16 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 241) [DWC-XCU-8] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 38 Line: 1199 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: (Double-quotes) A ( doesn't terminate a $(. Action: Change '"("' on P38, L1199 to '")"'. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 17 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 12) [DT-XCU-8] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This feature is felt to be widely in use in applications. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 39 Line: 1206 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: Someone's gotta ask: is it time to declare backtick obsolescent? It's not time to delete it yet, but warning that it should no longer be used is in the best interest of the industry. See also 1910, 1960 Action: Declare obsolescent. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 18 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 13) [DT-XCU-9] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 40 Line: 1266 Section: 3.2.3 Problem: ${} "unspecified". Can we try again to converge this to get rid of the fuzzy wording for compromise? Action: Pick one way and require it. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 19 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 242) [DWC-XCU-9] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 41 Line: 1312 Section: 3.3 Problem: (Token Recognition) It is very strange to represent unquoted character sequences as quoted characters. It is even worse when you are not consistent. These are shell tokens, not character constants or string constants. Action: Change 'sequences: "$", ${,' on P41, L1312 to 'sequences: $, $(,'. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 20 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 14) [DT-XCU-10] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_21 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 42 Line: 1348 Section: 3.3.1 Problem: This was UPE; the current text doesn't apply, but aliases should always be supported. Action: Delete line. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 21 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 243) [DWC-XCU-10] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 42 Line: 1348 Section: 3.3.1 Problem: (Alias Substitution) Alias substitution must be supported on all systems that support the POSIX User Portability Utilities option as well as on all XSI-conformant systems. Action: Change "XSI-conformant systems." on P42, L1348 to "XSI-conformant systems or if the system supports the User Portability Utilities option.". Also, since this line is as close as you will get to a synopsis line in this section, this line should have UP and XSI margin markings and be shaded. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 22 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 244) [DWC-XCU-11] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 44 Line: 1413 Section: 3.4 Problem: (Reserved Words) The definition of word can be found in XBD; not in XSH. Action: Change "XSH" on P44, L1413 to "XBD". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 23 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 15) [DT-XCU-11] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 1428 -> "it is possible..." and move first part of the footnote to rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 44 Line: 1427 Section: 3.4 Problem: Sounds good to me. ({ } as control operators.) See also 2692. Action: Make control operators. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 24 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 245) [DWC-XCU-12] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 45 Line: 1434 Section: 3.4 Problem: (Reserved Words) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-3. In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. Action: Change "break." on P45, L1434 to "break, Section 3.14.1 on page 100.". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 25 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 246) [DWC-XCU-13] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 46 Line: 1469-1475 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) Given that the example on P46, L1460-1468 uses the special parameter $@ before it is defined, it would be better if the description of the @ special parameter came before the description of the * special parameter. Action: Move P46, L1469-1475 to come before P46, L1455. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 26 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 247) [DWC-XCU-14] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 46 Line: 1475 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) The at sign here is not a character constant and is not a string constant; it is a special parameter. It shouldn't be quoted. Action: Change 'expansion of "@" generates zero fields, even when "@" is double- quoted' on P46, L1475 to 'expansion of @ generates zero fields, even when @ is double-quoted'. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 27 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 248) [DWC-XCU-15] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1484 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. As with the dashes used to introduce options and for the -- operand, the $- special parameter should use a wide dash rather than a thin dash. Action: Change "$-" on P47, L1484 to use the same dash that appears on P47, L1483 and L1491. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 28 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 249) [DWC-XCU-16] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1501 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: (Special Parameters) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-3. In XBD most references to other places inside the document listed page numbers where the referenced material could be found (unless it appeared on the same page). The same convention should be used in this document. Action: Change "sh" on P47, L1501 to "sh on page 703". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 29 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 16) [DT-XCU-12] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note 1504-> rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 47 Line: 1507-1517 Section: 3.5.2 Problem: Should be EXAMPLE Action: Add "Example" section. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 30 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 250) [DWC-XCU-17] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 48 Line: 1531 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: (Shell Variables) The primary definition of the environment is in Chapter 6 of XBD, not in XSH. There is also some discussion of the environment in the description of the exec family of functions in XSH, but a pointer that only specifies XSH (without mentioning exec) is misleading. Action: Change "as defined by the XSH specification" on P48, L1531 to "as defined by XBD specification, Chapter 6, Environment Variables and XSH specification, Chapter 4, System Interfaces, exec. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 31 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 17) [DT-XCU-13] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 49 Line: 1599 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Inconsistent quoting (quoting single characters but not strings) is truly confusing. Since this is being discussed on the side, I won't say too much, but the more examples I see of this, the more I think that characters which are intended as input to the computer or output from it should be represented in the constant width courier font. (That may obviate the need for quoting at all, but possibly present an ISO conformance problem.) (The original .2 made far more liberal use of CW font, and it was far more readable in this regard; I think the change away from CW was a mistake.) Action: Determine fix, and do it, but whatever, fix this inconsistency. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 32 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 18) [DT-XCU-14] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move 1612-1616 -> 1632 (new para after PS4) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50 Line: 1612-1616 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Not only is this rationale in a normative place, this is a non-sequeteur. Action: Move it to where it belongs (as rationale). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 33 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 19) [DT-XCU-15] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_34 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50 Line: 1628 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: Inconsistent rationale. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 34 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 251) [DWC-XCU-18] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 50,51 Line: 1629-1631,1641,1642-1644,1650 Section: 3.5.3 Problem: (Shell Variables--Rationale) It looks like this rationale from POSIX.2 didn't get updated when POSIX.2a was approved. Most of the variables described as not being defined here are defined on pages 48-49. There is nothing in the descriptions of LINENO, PPID, and PS2 that isn't already covered in normative text. Action: Delete the last sentence on P50, L1629-1631 and join the following paragraph to this paragraph. Delete P50, L1641. Delete P50, L1642-1644. Delete P51, L1650. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 35 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 252) [DWC-XCU-19] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 52 Line: 1674 Section: 3.6 Problem: (Word Expansions) Awkward English. Action: Change "always is performed" on P52, L1674 to "is always performed". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 36 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 253) [DWC-XCU-20] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 52 Line: 1680,1681 Section: 3.6 Problem: (Word Expansions) The $ character here is not a string constant and should not appear in quotes. Action: Change '"$"' on P52, L1680 to '$'. Change '"$"' on P52, L1681 to '$'. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 37 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 254) [DWC-XCU-21] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 53 Line: 1720-2721,1727 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: (Tilde Expansion) Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. This is a global issue and should be corrected each time it happens. Later comments will note the places I have found, but please correct any other places I miss. LOGNAME is not described in XSH; it is described in XBD. Action: Change "see variable assignment in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P53, L1720-2721 to "see XBD specification, Section 2.326, variable assignment". Change "in the XSH specification" on P53, L1726-1727 Change "in XBD specification, Section 6.3, Other Environment Variables". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 38 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 255) [DWC-XCU-22] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Accept it will be reworked too look more like POSIX.2, line 1732 on should be rationale, redo as per posix.2m p829 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 53-54 Line: 1732-1757 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: (Tilde Expansion) The text on P53-54, L1732-1757 should be rationale; not normative text. P54, L1754-1757 duplicates P54, L1766-1769. Action: Move P54, L1758 to come before P53, L1732. Delete P54, L1754-1757. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 39 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 20) [DT-XCU-16] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 1749-1750 (note this will all be rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 54 Line: 1749 Section: 3.6.1 Problem: Move $~ to "Future Directions" (or just do it?) Action: Move (or do, which is fine with me). _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 40 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 256) [DWC-XCU-23] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 55 Line: 1784 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "see name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P55, L1784 to "see XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 41 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 257) [DWC-XCU-24] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 56 Line: 1821 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. You should use the same dash in "${parameter:-word}" on P56, L1821 and "${parameter-word}" on P56, L1822. You currently have a thin dash on L1821 and a wide dash on L1822. Action: Change the dash used in "${parameter:-word}" on P56, L1821 to be the dash used in "${parameter-word}" on P56, L1822. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 42 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 258) [DWC-XCU-25] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 57 Line: 1892-1895 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: (Parameter Expansion) The text in the rationale on P57, L1892-1895 duplicates normative text on P55, L1783-1790. Action: Delete P57, L1892-1895. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 43 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 21) [DT-XCU-17] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is useful rationale and will be kept. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 58 Line: 1901-1904 Section: 3.6.2 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 44 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 22) [DT-XCU-18] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: redo para as per POSIX.2 p128 l479-482 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 58 Line: 1931 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: It isn't English. A "shall" biff. Action: Restore the original: "The results of command substitution shall not be processed for further tilde substitution..." _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 45 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 259) [DWC-XCU-26] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 59 Line: 1946 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: (Command Substitution) Given that $( ) was standardized in 1992, I would no longer call it "new". Action: Change "new" on P59, L1946 to "newer". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 46 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 260) [DWC-XCU-27] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 59 Line: 1965 Section: 3.6.3 Problem: (Command Substitution) The $( and ( here represent shell grammar tokens, not general character constants or string constants. Besides that they should be handled the same way on P59, L1965 as they are on P59, L1974. Action: Change '$( and "("' on P59, L1965 to '$( and ('. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 47 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 23) [DT-XCU-19] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The rationale is felt to be useful. The example on 1992-1999 will be put into the EXAMPLES or RATIONALE section. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 60 Line: 2001 Section: 3.6.4 Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 48 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 261) [DWC-XCU-28] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61 Line: 2050-2051 Section: 3.6.4 Problem: (Arithmetic Expansion) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "as indicated by control operator in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions," on P61, L2050-2051 to "as indicated by the definition of control operator (see XBD specification, Section 2.64, control operator),". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 49 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 262) [DWC-XCU-29] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 61,62 Line: 2060-2061,2068-2069,2078 Section: 3.6.5 Problem: (Field Splitting) The XBD specification clearly specifies , , , and as the way to refer to these characters from the Portable Character Set (section 4.1). Changing ", , and characters" as it appeared in POSIX.2 to "space/comma/tab" in this draft on P62, L2068 and L2078 adds lots of confusion. (Are you talking about the three characters , , and ; those three plus the character; or the ten characters , , , , , ,

, , , and .) Action: Change "a space, tab and newline character" on P61, L2060 to "the , , and characters". Change "space, tab or newline characters" on P61, L2061 to ", , or characters". Change "space/comma/tab, any sequence of space and tab" on P62, L2068-2069 to to ", any sequence of and ". Change "space/comma/tab" on P62, L2078 to "". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 50 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 263) [DWC-XCU-30] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 63 Line: 2101 Section: 3.7 Problem: (Redirection) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Also the definition of file descriptor now appears in XBD; we shouldn't refer to ISO POSIX-1 here. Action: Change "the definition in the ISO POSIX-1 standard" on P63, L2101 to "XBD specification, Section 2.111, file descriptor". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 51 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 264) [DWC-XCU-31] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 64 Line: 2158,2167 Section: 3.7.3,3.7.4 Problem: (Appending Redirected Output and Here-document) Section 3.7.2 clearly states what n defaults to if it is not specified. Sections 3.7.3 and 3.7.4 must also specify the default. Also note that here-documents can be connected to any input file descriptor, not just standard input (or file descriptor 0). Action: Add "If the number is omitted, the redirection refers to standard output (file descriptor 1)." to the end of P64, L2158. Change "standard input" on P64, L2161 to "input". Add the following after P64, L2167: where the optional n represents the file descriptor number. If the number is omitted, the here-document refers to standard input (file descriptor 0). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 52 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 24) [DT-XCU-20] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move 2219-2236 after 2265 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2219 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: This is rationale or example. Action: Mark as such. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 53 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 25) [DT-XCU-21] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_54 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2238 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: Huh? Something went wrong here. Action: Restore from P836, line 3476 of .2-1992. (Or equivalent.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 54 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 265) [DWC-XCU-32] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2238 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) In POSIX.2, the range of legal file descriptors is listed as "0-({OPEN_MAX}- 1)" and the first part of the following sentence has been garbled. Action: Change "0-(this section" on P66, L2238 to "0-({OPEN_MAX}-1). The file descriptors discussed in Redirection". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 55 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 26) [DT-XCU-22] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_56 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2240 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: Ancient History. (The LIS is dead in this regard.) Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 56 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 266) [DWC-XCU-33] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 66 Line: 2240-2246 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) Given that other language bindings have now been done (or abandoned), I don't believe the paragraph on P66, L2240-2246 applies any more. Action: Delete P66, L2240-2246. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 57 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 267) [DWC-XCU-34] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete text on p65 l2184-2186 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 67 Line: 2266-2268 Section: 3.7.7 Problem: (Open File Descriptors for Reading and Writing) The text on P67, L2266-2268 in rationale duplicates P65, L2184-2186 in normative text. Action: Delete P67, L2266-2268. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 58 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 268) [DWC-XCU-35] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 69 Line: 2327 Section: 3.8.2 Problem: (Exit Status for Commands) References to other parts of this document should now specify "this document" instead of "POSIX.2" to be consistent with the rest of the text. Action: Change "POSIX.2 command, env, nohup, and xargs utilities" on P69, L2327 to "command, env, nohup, and xargs utilities in this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 59 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 269) [DWC-XCU-36] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 70 Line: 2370 Section: 3.9.1 Problem: (Simple Commands) The paragraph on P70, L2370 is a lead-in to the list following it. It should end with a colon instead of a period. Action: Change "end." on P70, L2370 to "end:". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 60 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 270) [DWC-XCU-37] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 72 Line: 2426 Section: 3.9.1 Problem: (Simple Commands) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. The dash used in "<<-" should be a wide dash instead of a thin dash. Action: Change the dash in "<<-" on P72, L2426 from a thin dash to a wide dash. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 61 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 271) [DWC-XCU-38] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 73 Line: 2468-2480 Section: 3.9.2 Problem: (Command Search and Execution) In POSIX.2 the text corresponding to P73, L2468-2480 is indented to show that it is subservient to 1.d.i. With the text the way it is presented here, I can't tell if the paragraph on P73, L2481-2486 is subservient to 1.d.i.b or to 1.d.i. Action: Indent P73, L2468-2480. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 62 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 272) [DWC-XCU-39] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 73-74 Line: 2502-2525 Section: 3.9.2 Problem: (Command Search and Execution) The text on P73-74, L2502-2525 is rationale; not normative text. The reference to ISO/IEC 9945-2 should instead refer to this document. Action: Change "the ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 standard" on P73, L2502 to "this document". Move P74, L2526 to come before P73, L2502. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 63 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 273) [DWC-XCU-40] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 75 Line: 2569 Section: 3.9.3 Problem: (Pipelines) In this document references to POSIX Shell and Utilities should instead refer to XCU. Action: Change "POSIX Shell and Utilities" on P75, L2569 to "XCU". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 64 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 274) [DWC-XCU-41] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 77-84 Line: 2621-2929 Section: 3.9.5-3.9.16 Problem: (Lists, Compound Commands, and Function Definition Command) Asynchronous lists, sequential lists, and lists, and or lists are types of lists; they should be subservient to Section 3.9.4 Lists, instead of on the same level. Similarly, grouping commands, for loops, case conditional constructs, if conditional constructs, and until loops are compound commands and should be subservient to Section 3.9.9 Compound Commands instead of being presented at the same level. Section 3.9.9 doesn't make sense as it is now written unless the following sections are subservient to it. Action: Renumber Section 3.9.5 to be 3.9.4.1. Renumber Section 3.9.6 to be 3.9.4.2. Renumber Section 3.9.7 to be 3.9.4.3. Renumber Section 3.9.8 to be 3.9.4.4. Renumber Section 3.9.9 to be 3.9.5. Renumber Section 3.9.10 to be 3.9.5.1. Renumber Section 3.9.11 to be 3.9.5.2. Renumber Section 3.9.12 to be 3.9.5.3. Renumber Section 3.9.13 to be 3.9.5.4. Renumber Section 3.9.14 to be 3.9.5.5. Renumber Section 3.9.15 to be 3.9.5.6. Renumber Section 3.9.16 to be 3.9.6. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 65 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 275) [DWC-XCU-42] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 82 Line: 2033-2034 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P82, L2833- 2834 to "XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 66 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 276) [DWC-XCU-43] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 82 Line: 2836-2837 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) The paragraph on P82, L2836-2837 is rationale, not normative text. It is also already duplicated on P84, L2928-2929. Action: Delete P82, L2836-2837. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 67 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 277) [DWC-XCU-44] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 83 Line: 2885 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) If we are referring to this document as XCU instead of POSIX.2, we need to be consistent. Action: Change "a POSIX.2 shell script" on P83, L2885 to "an XCU shell script". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 68 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 27) [DT-XCU-23] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The rationale is felt to be useful. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 83 Line: 2893 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: This is muddled, but I think it's just Ancient History and should be deleted: functions are not exported through the environment. Action: Delete. (Or clarify if I'm wrong above.) _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 69 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 278) [DWC-XCU-45] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 84 Line: 2911-2918 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: (Function Definition Command) This text describing the KornShell methods of defining functions is out of date. Action: Change "The KornShell has" on P84, L2911-2912 to "Earlier versions of the KornShell had". Change "uses" on P84, L2916 to "used". Change "differs" on P84, L2916 to "differed". Change "A future edition of the KornShell is planned to align the latter syntax with POSIX and keep" on P84, L2917-2918 to "The current edition of the KornShell aligns the latter syntax with XCU and kept". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 70 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 28) [DT-XCU-24] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_69 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 84 Line: 2917 Section: 3.9.16 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 71 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 279) [DWC-XCU-46] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 85 Line: 2963 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) This document is supposed to be using American English. Action: Change "licence" on P85, L2963 to "license". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 72 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 280) [DWC-XCU-47] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2983 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The reserved word corresponding to the token identifier Esac is esac, not Esac. Action: Change "reserved word Esac" on P86, L2983 to "reserved word esac" with "esac" in Roman font, not bold font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 73 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 29) [DT-XCU-25] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Fix "In" -> "in" on line 2990 and sort out font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2983 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: "Esac" (bold) is not a reserved word (first on line); it should be CW esac (no capitalization). Action: Use CW esac. Similarly for the first bolded In on line 2990. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 74 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 281) [DWC-XCU-48] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 86 Line: 2986-2987 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "name in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P86, L2986- 2987 to "XBD specification, Section 2.170, name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 75 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 282) [DWC-XCU-49] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 90 Line: 3168-3169 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) There are extraneous spaces in the grammar. Action: Change ": DLESS" on P90, L3169 to ": DLESS". Change "| DLESSDASH" on P90, L3170 to "| DLESSDASH". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 76 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 283) [DWC-XCU-50] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 90 Line: 3191-3196 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The text on P90, L3191-3196 is rationale, not normative text. It is already duplicated in the rationale on P91, L3206-3211. Action: Delete P90, L3191-3196. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 77 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 284) [DWC-XCU-51] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: To be fixed by the cleanup of rationale/normative text into this chapter. Probably leave in rationale and delete p91, l3257-3242 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 91 Line: 3237-3242 Section: 3.10.2 Problem: (Shell Grammar Rules) The text on P91, L3257-3242 is duplicated in normative text on P90, L3197- 3202. Action: Delete P91, L3257-3242. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 78 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 285) [DWC-XCU-52] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 93 Line: 3269-3281 Section: 3.12 Problem: (Shell Execution Environment) The text in POSIX.2 (P150, L1331-1348) is much easier to understand than the text that appears in this draft. See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Note also that this will add missing periods to the end of each element in the bullet list. Action: Change P93, L3270-3281 to be a duplicate of POSIX.2 P150, L1332-1348, but change POSIX.2 P150, L1348 from "POSIX.1 {8} environment variables." to "environment variables (see XBD, Section 6.1, Environment Variable Definition).". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 79 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 286) [DWC-XCU-53] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 93-94 Line: 3291-3297 Section: 3.12 Problem: (Shell Execution Environment) The text on P93, L3291-3296 sounds like rationale, not normative text. Action: Move P94, L3297 to come before P93, L3291. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 80 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 30) [DT-XCU-26] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change wording to "In early drafts the desciption of.." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 94 Line: 3298 Section: 3.12 Problem: "previous" to what? Is this ancient history? Action: Fix reference or delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 81 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 31) [DT-XCU-27] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Move 3349-3371 into rationale after 3372 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 96 Line: 3370 Section: 3.13.1 Problem: "For example..." is Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 82 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 287) [DWC-XCU-54] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97 Line: 3397 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) The introduction to the list on P97, L3398-3427 should end with a colon instead of a period. Action: Change "expansion." on P97, L3397 to "expansion:". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 83 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 288) [DWC-XCU-55] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Select option 1 below and MAN shade _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97,98 Line: 3403,3430-3432 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) The text on P97, L3403: It only matches a pathname of literally a[b/c]d. is not currently required by POSIX.2 and conflicts with the rationale on P98, L3430-3432. We need to determine whether this is an XSI only extension, or a feature we now want all implementations to support. Action: Choose one of the following: 1. Make this a mandatory feature for all POSIX conforming implementations by making the following changes: A. Insert the following: If a slash character is found following an unescaped open square bracket character before a corresponding closing square bracket is found, the open bracket is treated as an ordinary character. before "For example" on P97, L3402. B. Change the last sentence on P98, L3430-3432 to: On some systems (including those conforming to the Single UNIX Specification), it matched a pathname of literally a[b/c]d. On other systems it produced an undefined condition (an unescaped [ used outside a bracket expression). In this revision, the XSI behavior is now required. 2. Make it clear that this is an XSI extension not required for POSIX conformance by making the following changes: A. Insert the following: If a slash character is found following an unescaped open square bracket character before a corresponding closing square bracket is found, the open bracket is treated as an ordinary character. before "For example" on P97, L3402 as shaded text with an XSI margin marking. B. Shade the text on P97, L3403 and add an XSI margin marking. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 84 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 289) [DWC-XCU-56] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 97 Line: 3404 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: (Patterns Used for File Name Expansion) Conditional clauses should be separated from the rest of the sentence by a comma. Action: Change "period (.) the period" on P97, L3404 to "period (.), the period". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 85 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 32) [DT-XCU-28] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: You need read permission in the current directory to expand f* but not read permission in the subdirectories to search them (search permission is sufficient) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 98 Line: 3438 Section: 3.13.3 Problem: How? It says that you don't need read permission in a directory to expand wildcards. I don't know how that would be done. As a matter of standardsese, this is probably acceptable, but it's inconsistent with glob() in XSH, and MIGHT be taken as requiring that a system actually RUN with all directories set to 111 or 311, which most won't. Action: Delete paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 86 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 290) [DWC-XCU-57] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 99 Line: 3448-3454 Section: 3.14 Problem: (Special Built-in Utilities) Page 82, line 2847 and page 249, L9022 both refer to the enumerated list on page 99 and in POSIX.2 there was an enumerated list on P153; but here on P99, L3448-3454 you have changed the enumerated list to a bullet list. This makes the references from P82 and P249 unresolved. Action: Change the bullet on P99, L3448 to "(1)". Change the bullet on P99, L3453 to "(2)". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 87 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 291) [DWC-XCU-58] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 100 Line: 3480-3483 Section: 3.14.1 Problem: (break special built-in) The reference to "this document" in the rationale is out of date; it referred to POSIX.2-1992, not XCU6. Action: Change "Consideration" on P100, L3480 to "In early drafts, consideration". Delete the second sentence in this paragraph: This new method was proposed late in the development of this document and adequate consensus could not be formed to include it. from P100, L3481-3483. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 88 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 292) [DWC-XCU-59] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 102 Line: 3532-3537 Section: 3.14.3 Problem: (continue special built-in) The example showing the use of the continue special built-in does not provide any indication that continue had any effect. Action: Add the following after P102, L3536: echo "\"$i\"" is not a directory. indented to the same level as "fi" on P102, L3535. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 89 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 33) [DT-XCU-29] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 105 Line: 3591 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: Possible ambiguity with redirection. Action: ">" -> "greater than". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 90 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 293) [DWC-XCU-60] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 105 Line: 3610,3612 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: (exec special built-in) Units might be appropriate in Fortran programs, but not in shell scripts. Go back to the term "file descriptor" as it was in POSIX.2. Action: Change "unit 5" on P105, L3610 to "file descriptor 5". Change "unit 0" on P105, L3610 to "file descriptor 0". Change "file unit 3" on P105, L3612 to "file descriptor 3". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 91 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 294) [DWC-XCU-61] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 106 Line: 3617,3619 Section: 3.14.6 Problem: (exec special built-in) The rationale is no longer correct. Action: Change "are not" on P106, L3617 to "were not". Change "does not" on P106, L3619 to "did not". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 92 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 295) [DWC-XCU-62] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 107 Line: 3627-3631 Section: 3.14.7 Problem: (exit special built-in) The text on P107, L3627-3631 is rationale, not normative. And, it is duplicated on P107, L3645-3649. Action: Delete P107, L3627-3631. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 93 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 34) [DT-XCU-30] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The issue was discussed and the idea rejected. The -p option is explicitly supplied in the spec to specify the output. delete lines 3662-3663 (as covered in the rationale) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 108 Line: 3680 Section: 3.14.8 Problem: Time to try again to standardize (output format of export). Action: Ask. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 94 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 297) [DWC-XCU-64] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 109 Line: 3694-3695 Section: 3.14.9 Problem: (readonly special built-in) The text on P109, L3694-3695 is rationale, not normative. And, it is duplicated on P109, L3710-3711. Action: Delete P109, L3694-3695. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 95 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 296) [DWC-XCU-63] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 109 Line: 3698 Section: 3.14.9 Problem: (readonly special built-in) There is an extra space on P109, L3688. Action: Change "readonly name" on P109, L3688 to "readonly name". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 96 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 298) [DWC-XCU-65] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 110 Line: 3729 Section: 3.14.10 Problem: (return special built-in) There is a mismatch between "the special parameter ?" (singular) and "are" (plural). Action: Change "? are set" on P110, L3729 to "? is set". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 97 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 299) [DWC-XCU-66] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3742 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) The second synopsis form should specify "+o option" instead of "-o option" as it is in POSIX.2, P156, L1582. Action: Change "[-o option]" on P111, L3742 to "[+o option]". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 98 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 300) [DWC-XCU-67] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3761 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "Assignment in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions" on P111, L3761 to "XBD specification, Section 2.326, Variable Assignment". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 99 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 35) [DT-XCU-31] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group feels that the changes are more than editorial and also are incorrect. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 111 Line: 3772-3780 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: The term "current job" (and later "previous job") are referred to without definition. The text becomes confusing. Action: Line 3773: "utilities;" -> "utilities (the 'current job');" Line 3775: "exit;" -> "exit (the 'previous job');" _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 100 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 36) [DT-XCU-32] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: We'll restore these MAN->XSI, also affects lines 3741, 3742 delete 3874 "which is not..." replace 3875 with This flag is required on XSI conforming systems Fix the change history about the -h flag _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 112 Line: 3797 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: This was explicitly deleted last time: leave it that way for exactly the reasons given at 3874. Action: Delete -h. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 101 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 37) [DT-XCU-33] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 113 Line: 3836 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Readability. Action: Move 3836 "All the..." to end of paragraph at 3838 (and for readability delete "the".). (At least DON'T let it be part of the paragraph at 3835, with which it has nothing to do.) _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 102 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 301) [DWC-XCU-68] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 113 Line: 3842 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: (set special built-in) There is a number mismatch. Action: Change "set the special parameter # to zero" on P113, L3842 to "sets the special parameter # to zero". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 103 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 38) [DT-XCU-34] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 114 Line: 3872 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Incomplete. (Sentence.) Action: "see" what? It was 3.5.2 (Special Parameters) in .2, so presumably it's 3.5.2 here as well. (They appear to match.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 104 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 39) [DT-XCU-35] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete sentence 3897-> option names rework next sentence The -o option was adopted from the Korn Shell to address user needs _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 114 Line: 3897 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 105 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 40) [DT-XCU-36] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the group feels that the rationale is useful. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 115 Line: 3913 Section: 3.14.11 Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 106 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 302) [DWC-XCU-69] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 116 Line: 3939 Section: 3.14.12 Problem: (shift special built-in) The is an extraneous space or two in the synopsis. Action: Change "shift [n]" on P116, L3939 to "shift [n]". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 107 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 303) [DWC-XCU-70] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Take option 1 below, and also do change history _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 117 Line: 3959 Section: 3.14.13 Problem: (times special built-in) The times special built-in does not appear in POSIX.2, is not marked MAN, and is not marked XSI. Action: Choose one of the following options: 1. Clearly note that times is now required of all conforming shells by making the following changes: A. Shade P117, L3959 and add a MAN margin marking. (The MAN marking should appear in one draft before being removed.) B. Change "None." on P117, L3977 to "The times special built-in from the Single UNIX Specification is now required for all conforming shells.". 2. Clearly note that times is an XSI extension not required for POSIX conformance by making the following changes: A. Shade P117, L3959 and add an XSI margin marking. B. Change "None." on P117, L3977 to "The times special built-in is required in all XSI conforming shells. It need not be provided otherwise.". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 108 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 304) [DWC-XCU-71] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 118 Line: 3980 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) There are extraneous space characters in the synopsis for the trap special built-in. Action: Change "trap [action condition ...]" on P118, L3980 to "trap [action condition ...]". (Note that this removes at least one space between "trap" and the "[" and at least one space between "action" and "condition".) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 109 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 305) [DWC-XCU-72] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 119 Line: 4029-4030 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The rationale on P119, L4029-4030 is duplicated on P118, L4000-4001. Action: Delete P119, L4029-4030. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 110 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 306) [DWC-XCU-73] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 119 Line: 4036-4039 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The example of saving and restoring traps is now in normative text. It doesn't need to be duplicated in the rationale. Action: Delete "For example:" from P119, L4036. Delete P119, L4037-4039. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 111 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 307) [DWC-XCU-74] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Copy POSIX.2 p 160 line 1757-1765 then do 1 & 2 marked below _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 120 Line: 4049 Section: 3.14.14 Problem: (trap special built-in) The mapping of numeric signals to signal names was not marked obsolescent in POSIX.2, it was listed as an implementation extension that could be supplied only under certain circumstances. The requirement that that condition must be met if the extension is provided must still be stated in normative text. It was incorrectly marked with an OB marking in XCU5. Action: Copy POSIX.2, P160, L1757-1765 to follow XCU5 draft 1, P118, L4009. If the intent was to allow XSI conforming systems to use different signal number mappings in the future, Change P120, L4049 to the following: XCU conforming implementations have been required to support the mapping of signal names to signal numbers shown above by XCU4, XCU4v2, and XCU5. XCU6 no longer requires this option. However, if XSI conforming systems are supposed to maintain this mapping, perform the following additional actions: 1. Add an additional sentence after the text copied from POSIX.2 that says: XSI conforming implementations shall provide this extension. shaded and marked with an XSI margin marking. 2. Change P120, L4049 to the following: XSI conforming implementations provide the mapping of signal names to numbers given above. Other implementations need not provide this optional mapping. I believe XSI conforming implementations should be required to continue to support this mapping extension. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 112 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 308) [DWC-XCU-75] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 121 Line: 4069 Section: 3.14.15 Problem: (unset special built-in) The text here "All cases of name were successfully unset." is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean that if I specified a name operand of "Ab" that "AB", "Ab", "aB", and "ab" were unset. The POSIX.2 wording "All names (with "name" in italics and "s" in Roman font) were successfully unset." is clearer. Action: Change "cases of name" on P121, L4069 to "name operands" or "names" (with "name" in italic font and "s" in Roman font). _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 113 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 309) [DWC-XCU-76] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Addressed by an action _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 123 Line: 4085-4093 Section: 4 Problem: (Utilities) The materials distributed with this draft already noted that the "Chapter 3" at the top of P123 was a mistake. The note on P123, L4087 notes that other changes are needed. This is a request that those changes include adding a reference to the POSIX options (as well as the XSI options) that affect the following utility descriptions. Action: Change "Chapter 3" at the top of P123 to "Chapter 4". Clearly describe the POSIX options as well as the XSI options in this introduction. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 114 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 41) [DT-XCU-37] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: reject, SCCS is an XSI extension and not required for POSIX conformance _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 124 Line: 4095 Section: admin Problem: It was a long and painful battle between SCCS and RCS, which was finally deemed a loss by both sides, to determine which revision control system should go into the standard. In the decade or more since this battle, it appears that SCCS has more-or-less stagnated, and that RCS continues to improve and evolve, with a large number of sophisticated and powerful wrappers (e.g. CVS) developed to make it even more powerful. Although, having looked closely at both, I believe that SCCS's file format is superior (and if you haven't looked yourself, but rather believe the rumors about SCCS and forward deltas, they're STILL false), overall I think that RCS is a better revision control system, and it continues to evolve compatibly with older versions. I believe it is the wrong direction to standardize on SCCS at this time, because it is not (as far as I can tell) the predominant revision control system (that might be standardized). Note that in the intervening decade the issue with "short" filenames has pretty much evaporated, so the arguments about naming conventions no longer apply, and since RCS now handles "on the side" directories, it can handle revisioning of files with names exactly equal to whatever NAME_MAX is, which SCCS cannot (at least in this form). Action: Delete *all* SCCS commands. (I am not asking that RCS replace it, just asserting that SCCS is now even more clearly the wrong answer.) _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 115 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 310) [DWC-XCU-77] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 124 Line: 4101-4102 Section: admin Problem: (admin synopsis) There is no reason why the admin synopsis on P124, L4101-4102 would not fit on a single line. Action: Get rid of the line break at the end of P124, L4101. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 116 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 311) [DWC-XCU-78] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 127 Line: 4228 Section: admin Problem: (admin operands) A word was omitted. Action: Change "instance file" on P127, L4228 to "instance of file". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 117 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 42) [DT-XCU-38] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: POSIX.2 went through this discussion and it was felt easier to do it this way for reference, and clearer for requirements. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 129 Line: 4321-4336 Section: alias Problem: The ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES section is cluttered and therefore less useful than it could be. Almost all (all?) commands have the same basic theme that the LC_* (and friends) environment variables do "the standard things". As we found in balloting, references to repeated identical statements are far more useful than copies, because the exceptions become easy to see. This applies here as well. Action: 1) Add new text (probably as 1.10, under ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES, but elsewhere is fine) (line 646): Default Internationalization Environment Variables: The following environment variables affect the internationalization of most commands, and have the same effect on most commands. The "ENVIRONMENT VARIABLES" section of each command description can contain the statement "The default internationalization environment variables apply.", possibly with exceptions specific to the command, with the effect of applying the environment variables below to each such command. 2) Replace the standard list in every command that uses it with "The default internationalization environment variables apply". If there are minor exceptions, the editors should simply make the change editorially. If there are significant exceptions, the editors should flag them for evaluation next ballot. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 118 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 312) [DWC-XCU-79] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 131 Line: 4379 Section: alias Problem: (alias rationale) History has advanced by a few years now. Action: Change "Historical versions of the KornShell have not" on P131, L4379 to "Historical versions of the KornShell had not". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 119 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 313) [DWC-XCU-80] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 132-138 Line: 4394-4674 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) This draft has marked the -l option as mandatory, but on P133, L4435 it is also marked LEGACY. I thought XSI Legacy features were supposed to be dropped from this draft along with POSIX.2 obsolescent features. Action: Delete "[-l]" from P132, L4394 and the MAN margin marking that goes with it. Change "[-abilv]" on P132, L4395 to "[-abiv]". Change "[-clv]" on P132, L4397 to "[-cv]". Change "[-abil]" on P132, L4398 to "[-abi]". Delete P133, L4434-4435. Delete "-l, " from P138, L4674. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 120 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 314) [DWC-XCU-81] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 132-136 Line: 4396-4591 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) In some places in this draft, the -s option is marked UN and MAN. in other places it is just marked MAN. In at least one place it is just marked UN. I see no reason for the UN marking. However, since the format of the symbol table is not specified in normative text, we can't require that the symbol table be portable across all machines. Action: Delete the UN marking from P132, L4396. Change "creates administrative information in a format that is portable across all machines" on P132, L4408-4409 to "creates administrative information indicating whether a symbol table is present in the archive". Change the "UN" margin symbol on P133, L4448 to "MAN". Change P136, L4585-4591 to: BSD implementations historically required applications to provide the -s option whenever the archive was supposed to contain a symbol table. As in this document, System V historically creates or updates an archive symbol table whenever an object file is removed from, added to, or updated in the archive. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 121 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 43) [DT-XCU-39] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This will be reverted back to XSI, l 4407,4408 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 132 Line: 4408 Section: ar Problem: What? Here you say it's portable (but don't give details, so it really isn't), and then at 4572, explicitly say it isn't portable. Really, this is a System V incursion that must be removed. Action: Remove statement about portability. Also remove statement at 4407 about printability. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 122 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 44) [DT-XCU-40] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Make this feature XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 132 Line: 4409 Section: ar Problem: I don't have an objection to the requirement that the symbol table be rebuilt (although others may). However, this is inconsistent in spirit with -q: rebuilding the symbol table is likely to be more expensive than rebuilding the archive itself! (Or at least as expensive, as it MUST be replaced in place, and the work avoided by -q is exactly the rebuild process!.) Action: Delete -q: the ROI just isn't there. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 123 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 45) [DT-XCU-41] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: MAN revert backs to XSI Need to tidy up the rationale to allow the XSI text Also revise the change history _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 132 Line: 4424,4425 Section: ar Problem: The positioning operators are of VERY little use given the requirement that the symbol table be present. If the archive is a library, it has a symbol table and position in the file is irrelevant. If it's not a library, tar and cpio tell us that there's no benefit in doing this (because it's rarely if ever asked for). Action: Delete all positioning argument (-a, -b, -i -m) and the corresponding synopsis changes and other changes. See line 4629 as well. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 124 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 46) [DT-XCU-42] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_119 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 133 Line: 4434 Section: ar Problem: The -l option is marked legacy. Action: Delete (because it's legacy, and I don't see a good case for it.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 125 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 315) [DWC-XCU-82] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 133 Line: 4447 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) Now that the -a, -b, and -i options have been added, their interaction with -r needs to be noted. Action: Change "archive" on P133, L4447 to "archive unless a -a, -b, or -i option specifies another position". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 126 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 316) [DWC-XCU-83] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 133,137 Line: 4469-4470,4598-4604 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) Now that the -T option has been added, the statement on P133, L4469-4470 no longer applies. Action: Delete the sentence "If the file ... the results are undefined." from P133, L4469-4470. Delete P137, L4598-4604. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 127 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 47) [DT-XCU-43] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change to "These remarks may but need not remain true for a new implementation of this utility; ...." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 136 Line: 4583 Section: ar Problem: "a brand new implementation of this document"? Huh? I think it's trying to say a "new implementation of ar", or possibly a "new implementation of this standard", but I'm not sure how to implement a document. Action: Depends on whether we say "this standard" later. Keep as open. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 128 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 317) [DWC-XCU-84] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 137 Line: 4632-4636 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) Now that the -m and -q options are provided, the rationale saying that they are not provided should be removed. Action: Delete the last full sentence on P137, L4632-4636. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 129 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 48) [DT-XCU-44] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 137 Line: 4634 Section: at Problem: "ranlib-style" is not "ranlib with the option -style"! Action: Return to original text: "ranlib-style" as a hyphenated English(??) word. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 130 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 318) [DWC-XCU-85] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 138 Line: 4661 Section: 4.ar Problem: (ar utility) The period in the middle of the see also list should be a comma. Action: Change "strip." on P138, L4661 to "strip,". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 131 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 319) [DWC-XCU-86] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 142 Line: 4772-4778 Section: 4.at Problem: (at utility) On other utilities that are part of the User Portability Utilities option, the synopsis is shaded and marked with a UP margin marking. Here the name section is shaded and marked instead of the synopsis. Action: Drop the shading and the UP margin marking from P142, L4772. Add shading and the UP margin marking to P142, L4774-4778. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 132 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 49) [DT-XCU-45] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: We will revert the MAN shading back to XSI and fix up any CH/Rationale issues. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 142 Line: 4792 Section: at Problem: The .allow/.deny files are an administrative interface, and as such is not properly part of this standard (rather, part of some future sysadmin standard). See also line 5085. Action: Delete. (Out of scope.) (See also 4980.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 133 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 50) [DT-XCU-46] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 143 Line: 4842 Section: at Problem: English. Switch sentence around to bring qualifier to front. Action: Change to read "In the POSIX locale, the time field...". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 134 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 320) [DWC-XCU-87] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 149 Line: 5085-5091 Section: 4.at Problem: (at utility) Now that at.allow and at.deny are specified in normative text, this paragraph in rationale no longer applies. Action: Delete P149, L5085-5091. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 135 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 51) [DT-XCU-47] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 150 Line: 5129 Section: at Problem: "yacc-like" is not "yacc with the option -like"! Action: Return to original text: "yacc-like" as a hyphenated English word. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 136 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 321) [DWC-XCU-88] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 151 Line: 5152 Section: 4.awk Problem: (awk utility) In POSIX.2, the second synopsis form is: awk [-F] -f progfile... [-v assignment]... [argument...] In this draft the second synopsis form is: awk [-F] -v progfile] ... [-v assignment]... [argument...] which has several problems: 1. There is a mismatched ']'. 2. The -v option takes an assignment option argument; not a progfile option argument. 3. No synopsis form includes the -f option that is described on P151, L5173- 5177. Action: Change "-v progfile]" on P151, L5152 to "-f progfile". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 137 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 322) [DWC-XCU-89] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 155 Line: 5322 Section: 4.awk Problem: (awk utility) The logical OR operator is two adjacent pipe symbols. They should not be separated by a space. Action: Change "expr | | expr" on P155, L5322 to "expr || expr". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 138 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 323) [DWC-XCU-90] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: As below and additionally shade as MAN _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 165 Line: 5724-5726,5729-5732 Section: 4.awk Problem: (awk utility) I suggest that this obsolescent feature be reinstated to non-obsolescent, mandatory behavior (as it now is in XCU5). Conforming POSIX.2 implementations already supply this feature and applications are depending on this feature even though it has been marked obsolescent. Action: Delete P165, L5724-5726. Remove the shading from the text on P165, L5729-5731 and drop the XSI margin marking. Delete P165, L5732. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 139 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 52) [DT-XCU-48] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_138 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 165 Line: 5730 Section: awk Problem: Bare "length" was obsolescent in POSIX, leave it that way! Action: Revert change from .2. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 140 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 53) [DT-XCU-49] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Agree and will be addressed as part of the style issues _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 174 Line: 6168,6170 Section: awk Problem: Discussing the character quote (")... the isolated, unquoted quotes are not at all readable. In this case, use the word 'quote' or at least set in CW font. See line 6258 for a better example (although still imperfect). Action: As above. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 141 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 325) [DWC-XCU-92] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: No change, the implementation meaning of // was not changed _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 180,181,182 Line: 6349-6356,6405-6409,6432-6434 Section: 4.basename Problem: (basename utility) Donn Terry raised the question of whether the pathname "//" should continue to have implementation-defined meaning in his comment on XBD page 37, line 908 (Pathname definition). If the decision is made to disallow implementation- defined behavior for "//" at the start of a pathname, the basename and dirname utilities need to be adjusted as well. Action: If and only if the implementation-dependant meaning of exactly two leading characters in a pathname is removed in XBD's definition of pathname, make the following changes to basename (after fixing the problems noted in my objection DWC-XCU-91: 1. Change "through 6" on P180, L6349 to "through 5". 2. Delete P180, L6350. 3. Change "3." on P180, L6351 to "2.". 4. Change "4 to 6" on P180, L6352 to "3 to 5". 5. Change "4." on P180, L6353 to "3.". 6. Change "5." on P180, L6354 to "4.". 7. Change "6." on P180, L6356 to "5.". 8. Delete P181, L6405-6409. 9. Change P182, L6432-6434 to: Earlier versions of this document set specified implementation-defined behavior for pathnames starting with exactly two characters. At that time the basename and dirname utilities provided similar implementation-defined behavior. Now that // has consistent behavior in pathnames, basename and dirname have been updated to provide corresponding defined behavior. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 142 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 324) [DWC-XCU-91] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 180 Line: 6350,6352 Section: 4.basename Problem: (basename utility) When the fix suggested for POSIX.2 interpretation request #164 was applied, it was done a little bit too literally. When the new step 1 was added, the references in the old description to other step numbers should have been adjusted. Action: Change "2 to 5" on P180, L6350 to "3 to 6". Change "3 to 5" on P180, L6352 to "4 to 6". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 143 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 326) [DWC-XCU-93] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 181,182 Line: 6412,6415,6427,6429 Section: 4.basename Problem: (basename utility) By putting string in quotes in constant width font, you specify that the literal string consisting of the characters , , , , , and is the string to be evaluated. I don't believe that is the intent in any of these four places. Action: Put "string" on P181, L6412 into italic font. Put "string" on P181, L6415 into italic font. Put "string" on P182, L6427 into italic font. Put "string" on P182, L6429 into italic font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 144 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 54) [DT-XCU-50] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the MAN shading back to XSI , fix any rationale/change history issues _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 183 Line: 6457 Section: batch Problem: As for at: delete the .allow/.deny files. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 145 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 327) [DWC-XCU-94] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 183-184 Line: 6468-6469,6508-6514,6518 Section: 4.batch Problem: (batch utility) It looks like the at and batch utilities were both specified on the same man page at one point and the separation was not complete. There are several references in the description of batch to options that do not exist for batch. Action: Delete the last sentence on P183, L6468-6469. Delete P184, L6508-6510. Move P184, L6511-6514 to follow P184, L6517. Delete "where has the same format as is described in the STDOUT section." from P184, L6518 and make "Neither this" be the start of a new paragraph. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 146 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 328) [DWC-XCU-95] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change "cases of file" on P186, L6585 to "files" (with "file" in italic font and "s" in Roman font). _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 186 Line: 6585 Section: 4.bc Problem: (bc utility) The text here "After all cases of file have been read" is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean that if I specified a file operand of "Ab" that "AB", "Ab", "aB", and "ab" were to be read. The POSIX.2 wording "All files (with "file" in italics and "s" in Roman font) have been read" is clearer. Action: Change "cases of file" on P186, L6585 to "file operands" or "files" (with "file" in italic font and "s" in Roman font). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 147 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 55) [DT-XCU-51] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Delete the word "preceding" on line 6626 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 187 Line: 6626 Section: bc Problem: What "preceding text syntax description". Did something get deleted or reordered? Action: The grammar was moved in this draft to before the textual description; it intentionally followed in the original text (and paralleled the shell in that regard) intentionally. Move back or make a very good case that moving the normative (but unreadable by ordinary users!) grammar to the front of the topic helps anything. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 148 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 56) [DT-XCU-52] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 193 Line: 6863 Section: bc Problem: Read in context, this "must" is a requirement on the implementation, not the user, and therefore should be "shall". Action: must -> shall. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 149 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 329) [DWC-XCU-96] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 201 Line: 7200-7201 Section: 4.bg Problem: (bg utility) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "The format of job_id is described in the entry for job control job ID in the XBD specification, Chapter 2, Definitions." on P201, L7200-7201 to "The format of job_id is defined in XBD specification, Section 2.149, Job Control Job ID.". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 150 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 330) [DWC-XCU-97] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note an issue has been raised on the issue list) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 204 Line: 7285 Section: 4.c89 Problem: (c89 utility) If we align XSH with the C standard approved later this year or early next year instead of with the C standard approved in 1989, we need to have a discussion about how to change this utility. Especially if there are incompatibilities between the 1989 C standard and the 1999 or 200x C standard, we may need to create a new utility (e.g. c99 or c2000) to describe a compiler that accepts source code conforming to the new C standard. If we adopt a new utility, we also need to decide whether c89 should be kept as an obsolescent utility or discarded completely. Action: Discuss this issue in Montreal and keep it on the books until a decision is made as to which C standard this revised set of standards will use as a basis. If we decide to create a new utility, globally search for each occurrence of "c89" in the draft and replace entries as appropriate. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 151 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 331) [DWC-XCU-98] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 204 Line: 7303-7304 Section: 4.c89 Problem: (c89 utility) The manner in which c89 (and other utilities) create files is described in XCU Section 1.6.3; not in XSH. In this book, XBD, and XSH when talking about flags to be passed to open() we talk about "file permission bits"; not "file permissions". Action: Change "in the XSH specification" on P204, L7303 to "in Section 1.6.3 on page 10". Change "permissions" on P204, L7304 to "permission bits". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 152 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 57) [DT-XCU-53] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Point to 1.6.2.4 file read/write ... on page 10 in this document _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 204 Line: 7303 Section: c89 Problem: "as specified..." is awfully vague. Be more specific as to where. Action: The original .2 says 2.9.1.4, which does not appear to have made it into this document. Is there a replacement? (If you really meant "with the consequences of open(), say that!) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 153 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 58) [DT-XCU-54] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group suggests that a .2 interpretation request be filed. If the interps committee agrees this is a problem then this would bring the issue within scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 205 Line: 7354 Section: c89 Problem: This is a painful one: this should have followed the lead of fort77 and taken a parameter (that is, -O n). However, it's a compatibility problem now. Action: I say, eat the problem, make the change to -O n, and suggest that implementations allow just -O (as a guidelines violation) indefinitely. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 154 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 332) [DWC-XCU-99] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 206 Line: 7404 Section: 4.c89 Problem: (c89 utility) The text on P206, L7404 doesn't make clear what is required behavior for POSIX compliant systems that don't claim to be XSI compliant. Action: Change "overrides" on P206, L7404 to "should override" (not shaded) and drop the XSI margin marking. Add a new sentence following P206, L7404: On XSI conforming systems, provide a pathname that shall override the default directory for temporary files, if any. with the entire sentence shaded with an XSI margin marking. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 155 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 59) [DT-XCU-55] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group believes this is a quality of implementation issue. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 208 Line: 7461 Section: c89 Problem: These "number of symbols" limits are profoundly too small for today's world. I'm not sure if this should be changed, but at least rationale should be added acknowledging this fact. Action: Add Rat? (Or increase massively.) See 7656 for more thoughts and a place to put it. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 156 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 60) [DT-XCU-56] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 208 Line: 7466 Section: c89 Problem: This set of rules about the various 32/64 bit models should not go unremarked by the balloting process. (If you're sensitive about integer size models, it should be read.) Action: I just made the remark... action completed :-). _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 157 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 333) [DWC-XCU-100] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add a reviewers note that the names of these macros may be changed, and an issue has been placed on the issues list _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 208,209,210 Line: 7473-7476,7492-7503,7555,7557-7559 Section: 4.c89 Problem: (c89 utility) Given that this revision of the POSIX standards provides a different (and possibly incompatible) programming environment due to the revision of the C standard (see also DWC-XCU-97), we need to use a different set of macros to determine which options are needed to provide the intended programming environments distinct from those used for conformance to the Single UNIX Specification, version 2. Action: Change "XBS5" on P208, L7473 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P208, L7474 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P208, L7475 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P208, L7476 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7492 to "XBS6", twice. Change "XBS5" on P209, L7493 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7494 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7495 to "XBS6", twice. Change "XBS5" on P209, L7496 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7497 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7498 to "XBS6", twice. Change "XBS5" on P209, L7499 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7500 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7501 to "XBS6", twice. Change "XBS5" on P209, L7502 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P209, L7503 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P210, L7555 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P210, L7557 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P210, L7558 to "XBS6". Change "XBS5" on P210, L7559 to "XBS6". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 158 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 334) [DWC-XCU-101] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 209 Line: 7519 Section: 4.c89 Problem: (c89 utility) The application usage is out of date. We should be talking about the difference between POSIX Shell and Utilities Conformance as defined by XCU6 instead of conformance to the 1993 ISO POSIX.2 standard. But, see also my comment DWC-XCU-97. Action: Change "systems conforming to the ISO/IEC 9945:1993 standard," on P209, L7519 to "systems providing POSIX Shell and Utilities Conformance (see Section 2.1.3 on page 28),". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 159 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 61) [DT-XCU-57] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 209 Line: 7519 Section: c89 Problem: "may...only" is kind of like "may not"; it's ambiguous. (This could be read as prohibiting c89 except as part of the the development option.) Action: "c89...as part of" -> "c89 is required only with the... _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 160 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 62) [DT-XCU-58] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete paragraph 7538-7540 Delete also 7619 and 7620. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 210 Line: 7539 Section: c89 Problem: (Topic: TMPDIR in c89.) 1) Normative requirement in Application Usage. (On XSI conformant...) 2) Specific XSI reference. (This is POSIX.) 3) It's a good change, all that having been said. Action: Leave change at 7404 and delete this paragraph. Delete also 7619. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 161 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 63) [DT-XCU-59] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change ISO C -> ISO/IEC 9899:1990 ... _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 211 Line: 7580 Section: c89 Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete (or rephrase). _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 162 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 64) [DT-XCU-60] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the question was asked and the answer was no _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 212 Line: 7625 Section: c89 Problem: Is it the case that this format suggestion is not happening, or is it just taking a very long time? Action: Just asking. Is it worth considering deleting? _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 163 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 65) [DT-XCU-61] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The suggested action was rejected. An action was assigned to clean up the wording (HPA). _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 214 Line: 7711 Section: cal Problem: Which Gregorian calendar: the 1752 one used in Catholic Europe, the later one used in England, or the one used in Russia (which did not convert until after the revolution). By strict definition, this is correct, but it's still worth some rationale. The easy way out of this one is to delete the command: it's worth very little in a standard. Action: Delete cal. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 164 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 66) [DT-XCU-62] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 220 Line: 7914 Section: cd Problem: Concur with introduction of "-" operator. Action: None. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 165 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 335) [DWC-XCU-102] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 222 Line: 8002-8008 Section: 4.cd Problem: (cd utility) The rationale for the cd utility hasn't kept up with features imported from XCU5. Action: Delete "setting OLDPWD, toggling current and previous directory (cd -), and " from P222, L8002-8003. Delete "cd - or of " from P222, L8004. Delete the last sentence from P222, L8004-8006. Delete P222, L8007-8008. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 166 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 67) [DT-XCU-63] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 8002-8008, delete 1618-1620 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 222 Line: 8002,8007 Section: cd Problem: 1) The requests of the security working group *may* no longer apply; reevaluate. 2) See line 7965; in this case I concur that PWD is (just barely) useful enough to retain, but also see 3.5.3 and line 1618, which makes this all sound awfully dumb. Action: Clean up, retain PWD, apply to 3.5.3. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 167 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 336) [DWC-XCU-103] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 223 Line: 8025 Section: 4.cflow Problem: (cflow utility) The first option on the synopsis for the cflow utility is missing the leading dash. See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. Action: Change "[r]" on P223, L8025 to "[-r]". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 168 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 68) [DT-XCU-64] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete "by a suitable amount of" change to "followed by indentation of at least one column position per level." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 224 Line: 8082 Section: cflow Problem: "a suitable" is unconstitutionally vague. That is, it's easy for someone to say "it isn't suitable for me" and abuse the standard. Either say how much per level, or otherwise make it specific and testable, or drop it. Action: "one character of indentation per nesting level". (Actually, I don't care about the number. "At least one" is fine, too.) _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 169 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 337) [DWC-XCU-104] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 225 Line: 8110-8128 Section: 4.cflow Problem: (cflow utility) >From the spacing between lines 8110 and 8111 and between lines 8116 and 8117, the intent seems to be that there are blank lines in the source in the example. From the output shown on 225, L8124 and L8125, it appears that there is also a blank line before P225, L8110 that is intended to be in file.c. But, with the line numbers that now appear on the page, the line numbers on L8124 and L8125 just don't match. Even if blank lines are added as indicated above, the reference to line 1 in file.c on P225, L8127 or to line 11 on P225, L8125 doesn't match. Action: Get rid of the paragraph break between P225, L8110 and L8111. Get rid of the paragraph break between P225, L8116 and L8117. Change "" on P225, L8124 to "". Change "" on P225, L8125 to "". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 170 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 69) [DT-XCU-65] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is outside of scope. An interpretation request would be needed to bring this into scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 227 Line: 8203 Section: chgrp Problem: This is fine, but incomplete: what if it's trying to chgrp a named, ordinary file? I don't see anything that says that it will continue with the next file (which it does, after reporting the error). Action: Actually, the Consequences of Errors general section says the right thing (line 770). Delete this text and replace with "Default". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 171 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 70) [DT-XCU-66] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is a required feature for existing POSIX.2 implementations. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 230 Line: 8283 Section: chmod Problem: Octal permissions: No. Not really portable. As convenient as I personally find them at times (both speaking and writing) they don't belong in the standard, and were dropped after careful consideration ten years ago. Delete this extension (with all its consequences). Action: Delete octal. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 172 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 71) [DT-XCU-67] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_170 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 232 Line: 8391 Section: chmod Problem: See chgrp above about consequences of errors. Action: As above. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 173 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 338) [DWC-XCU-105] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 8453-8454 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 233 Line: 8409-8410 Section: 4.chmod Problem: (chmod utility) The text on P233, L8409-8410 is rationale, not normative text. The statement made here is already covered by wording on P234, L8453-8454. Action: Delete P233, L8409-8410. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 174 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 72) [DT-XCU-68] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group feel that the rationale is useful. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 233 Line: 8427 Section: chmod Problem: Ancient History. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 175 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 73) [DT-XCU-69] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 8441-8447 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 233 Line: 8441 Section: chmod Problem: Inconsistent with introduction of ISVTXT in XSH (on directories). Action: Fix. (Prob. delete). _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 176 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 339) [DWC-XCU-106] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 234 Line: 8475 Section: 4.chmod Problem: (chmod utility) Despite what it says on P234, L8475, octal modes have not been added in this draft. Octal modes appeared as an obsolescent feature in POSIX.2; they have just been moved from obsolescent to mandatory status in this revision. Action: Change "are added" on P234, L8475 to "have been kept and made mandatory despite being marked obsolescent in the previous version of the standard". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 177 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 74) [DT-XCU-70] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_170/171 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 236 Line: 8547 Section: chown Problem: See chgrp. Action: As above. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 178 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 75) [DT-XCU-72] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add the suggested text in the action below to Application usage _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 243 Line: 8809 Section: cmp Problem: If a file is not a text file, the concept of line is at best ill-defined. Yes, it's a historical accident, but.... Action: Add: "For files which are not text files, line numbers simply reflect the presence of a newline character, without any implication that the file is organized into lines.". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 179 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 340) [DWC-XCU-107] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 248 Line: 8992-9000 Section: 4.comm Problem: (comm utility) The example uses "xpg4" as the name of a file to contain a sorted list of utilities in "this document". But xpg4 seems about three releases old for this purpose. Action: Change "xpg4" on P248, L8992 to "xcu". Change "xpg4" on P248, L8996 to "xcu". Change "xpg4" on P248, L8998 to "xcu". Change "xpg4" on P248, L9000 to "xcu". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 180 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 341) [DWC-XCU-108] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 249 Line: 9047 Section: 4.command Problem: (command utility) There is a number mismatch between "it" (singular) and "include" (plural). Action: Change "include" on P249, L9047 to "includes". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 181 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 76) [DT-XCU-73] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The patent issue is declared in the PAR, and this is an XSI extension _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 254 Line: 9225 Section: compress Problem: PATENT. It is my understanding that this material is currently covered by a U.S. (and possibly other) patent. Since this was excluded from the original standard at least in part because of the extra work involved in assuring that all the patent rules of the various standards bodies were met, it should be deleted again. I believe that there was SOME investigation on the topic, and there may have been concerns about whether the requirement of "reasonable" licensing was met. The original .2 gives a number of other portability-related reasons for this. Certainly the issue of file format and compression algorithm would have to be completely addressed before compress would be a suitable addition to the standard, even if there is no patent problem. Action: Delete Note: there are PD compression algorithms just as good or better, so if it is deemed that some compression algorithm is needed, one of those should be considered. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 182 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 77) [DT-XCU-74] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 254 Line: 9239 Section: compress Problem: Just so this doesn't get lost should the patent issue be resolved: this is algebraic nonsense. Action: It should read "9 <= bits <= 14". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 183 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 78) [DT-XCU-75] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the current text aligns with historic practise and on a lot of systems the default is 16 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 254 Line: 9240 Section: compress Problem: The default number of bits being variable is strange, in light of 9305. Action: Make 14. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 184 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 79) [DT-XCU-76] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 257 Line: 9239,9240 Section: cp Problem: The word "cp" is in CW-italic, not just CW on 2 of the 4 synopsis lines. Action: Change font. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 185 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 342) [DWC-XCU-109] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 257,259,261 Line: 9330,9443,9506 Section: 4.cp Problem: (cp utility) The 1992 standard left the meaning of the -r option implementation-defined in many areas and warned that it might be removed in a future revision. It is time to start that process. Action: Add an new margin mark to Section 1.7.1 on P13 after line 350 with the text: OB Obsolescent. The functionality described may be withdrawn in a future revision of this document. Strictly conforming POSIX shell and utilities applications (see 2.2.1 on page 33) and strictly conforming XSI shell and utilities applications (see 2.2.4 on page 34) must not use obsolescent features. Shade P257, L9330 and add an OB margin mark. Shade P259, L9443 and add an OB margin mark. Change "is" on P261, L9506 to "was". Change "shall" on P261, L9506 to "would". Add a new sentence to the end of the paragraph on P261, L9511: The -r option is now marked obsolescent. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 186 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 80) [DT-XCU-77] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_185 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 261 Line: 9505 Section: cp Problem: Deprecate -r, as suggested. Action: Do it. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 187 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 343) [DWC-XCU-110] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change to the XCU part of ISO/IEC .... (or the standard phrase) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 261 Line: 9509 Section: 4.cp Problem: (cp utility) The -R option is defined here as well as in ISO POSIX.2:1993. Action: Change "the ISO/IEC 9945-2:1993 standard" on P261, L9509 to "this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 188 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 344) [DWC-XCU-111] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 263 Line: 9502,9503 Section: 4.cp Problem: (cp utility) Section 1.6.2 of this document talks about features inherited from XSH. This section should use the same terminology. Action: Change "POSIX.1" on P263, L9592 to "XSH". Change "POSIX.1" on P263, L9593 to "XSH". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 189 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 81) [DT-XCU-78] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_134 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 264 Line: 9627 Section: crontab Problem: See the at command. Action: Delete .deny/.allow stuff. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 190 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 345) [DWC-XCU-112] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 265 Line: 9664 Section: 4.crontab Problem: (crontab utility) The last clause of the last sentence on P265, L9662-9664 had an additional comma in POSIX.2. Without the comma, the meaning of: any day matching either the month and day of month or the day of week can be interpreted two ways: 1. any day matching either the month and (day of month or the day of week), or 2. any day matching either (the month and day of month) or the day of week Reinstate the comma that appeared in POSIX.2 to remove the ambiguity. Action: Change "day of month or the day of week" on P265, L9664 to "day of month, or the day of week". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 191 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 82) [DT-XCU-79] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group determined that its not practical - no change required. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 266 Line: 9712 Section: crontab Problem: The statement about POSIX locale may be overkill. It would be difficult to make things all that workable in other locales. Is there any implementation experience with this to guide us? Action: Determine if this is practical (has been done). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 192 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 83) [DT-XCU-80] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: take the second option, delete the parenthetical statement (FORTRAN source is processed....) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 271 Line: 9899 Section: ctags Problem: "is" is fuzzy; would seem to prohibit ctags from handling Fortran on C-only systems. Action: "source is processed" -> "need only be processed". Also... do we wish to require a Fortran-only system to process C? (I'm just not sure.) The original .2 simply requires that ctags process Fortran; there's no "is" problem there. I would have no problem if this parenthetical sentence was simply removed restoring the old semantics. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 193 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 346) [DWC-XCU-113] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 9991-9992 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 275 Line: 10056-10057 Section: 4.ctags Problem: (ctags utilities) The text on P275, L10056-10057 duplicates information already provided on P273, L9991-9992. It only needs to be stated once. Action: Delete P275, L10056-10057. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 194 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 84) [DT-XCU-81] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: change shading: 10404 -> XSI MAN->XSI 10313, 10315 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 283 Line: 10315 Section: date Problem: Setting the date is an administrative function, and thus out of scope. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 195 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 85) [DT-XCU-82] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: In general the group agreed, but in this specific case, due to c9x this is now covered in the issues list - c9x strftime and XSH strftime differ _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 283 Line: 10331 Section: date Problem: The description of the field descriptors is highly redundant with the (now integrated) XSI stuff. Refer to the appropriate XSI function. Action: Delete Field descriptors and introductory text and replace with: The format string is processed as if it had been passed to the XSI function strftime(). _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 196 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 347) [DWC-XCU-114] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 284 Line: 10374,10379,10380 Section: 4.date Problem: (date utility) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change P284, L10374 from: See the LC_TIME description in the XBD specification, Chapter 5, Locale for the field to: See XBD specification, Section 5.3.5, LC_CTYPE for the field Change "Chapter 5, Locale" on P284, L10379 to "Section 5.3.5, LC_TIME". Change "Chapter 5, Locale" on P284, L10380 to "Section 5.3.5, LC_TIME". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 197 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 348) [DWC-XCU-115] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 290 Line: 10582 Section: 4.dd Problem: (dd utility) There is a number mismatch between "It" (singular) and "write" (plural). Action: Change "write" on P290, L10592 to "writes". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 198 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 349) [DWC-XCU-116] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 290 Line: 10587 Section: 4.dd Problem: (dd utility) The "notrunc" conversion type should be presented in the same font as the other conversion types. Action: Put "notrunc" on P290, L10587 in bold font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 199 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 86) [DT-XCU-83] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Its not in scope. An interpretation request will be filed , this will bring this in scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 290 Line: 10599 Section: dd Problem: Inconsistent. See line 10676. Action: Choose one, any one. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 200 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 87) [DT-XCU-84] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: All MAN-> XSI , and fix the rationale at 10815-10818 to note that these are XSI extensions. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 291 Line: 10650 Section: dd Problem: Codeset conversions not needed. Delete. See line 10815. Action: Delete (and the tables, which means you don't need to include them next time... otherwise I'd object to their suppression too; this is a new audience!). _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 201 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 350) [DWC-XCU-117] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 10791 "Fixing -> end of 10797) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 295 Line: 10787-10797 Section: 4.dd Problem: (dd utility) Unless someone in WG15 can provide evidence that a commercial dd utility is being shipped with the additional capabilities described in the paragraph on P295, L10787-10797, I believe this paragraph should be removed. Action: Delete P295, L10787-10797. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 202 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 88) [DT-XCU-85] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_201 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 295 Line: 10793 Section: dd Problem: New command line optio0ns: is there still a desire for this to happen. If so, it appears we have a promise to keep (and I'm NOT volunteering for THIS one). Action: Keep promise. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 203 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 351) [DWC-XCU-118] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 295 Line: 10819-10824 Section: 4.dd Problem: (dd utility) The information presented in rationale on P295, L10819-10824 is already provided by normative text on P292, L10701-10706. Action: Delete P295, L10819-10824. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 204 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 352) [DWC-XCU-119] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 299 Line: 10934-10935 Section: 4.delta Problem: (delta utility) A prompt is not issued to read the mrlist if the -m option is specified on the command line. A prompt is not issued to read a comment if the -y option is specified on the command line. And, prompts are written to STDOUT; not STDIN. There can only be one file operand specified as -. The wording on P299, L10934-10935 implies otherwise. Action: Change "A prompt is issued for the -m and -y options." on P299, L10934 to "To read an mrlist or a comment (see the -m and -y options)." (with "mrlist" and "comment" in italic font). Change "The file" on P299, L10935 to "A file". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 205 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 353) [DWC-XCU-120] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 300 Line: 10967-10969 Section: 4.delta Problem: (delta utility) There are extraneous angle brackets in the output format on P300, L10967- 10969. Action: Change "<" on P300, L10967 to "". Change "<>" on P300, L10968-10969 to "". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 206 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 354) [DWC-XCU-121] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 302 Line: 11007 Section: 4.df Problem: (df utility) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. Having the UP margin marking on the df synopsis line and having the -t option shaded implies that df must be provided by implementations even if they don't support the User Portability Utilities option and that only the -t option is added as a requirement when the UPU option is supported. I believe the intent here is that support for the df utility is required for systems supporting the UPU option and the -t option (inherited from the Single UNIX Specification) is now added as a mandatory feature. Other spots in this section use the MAN marking on -t, but this spot doesn't. For this draft, I believe the synopsis line should have had the UP and the MAN margin markings. But, since UP is usually used with a fully shaded synopsis line, you didn't have any way to mark the full synopsis UP and the -t option MAN. There is also an extraneous space in the synopsis. Action: Change "[ -P|-t]" on P302, L11007 to "[-P|-t]" and shade the entire line. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 207 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 89) [DT-XCU-86] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The MAN markings will be reversed to XSI as they were in ISSUE 5 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 302 Line: 11008 Section: df Problem: The number of free file slots is potentially meaningless and may not be available on all systems. Consider a system that dynamically allocates them. There may at some times be 0 free slots, but files could still be added. This would imply some really ugly implementation choices on new filesystem implementations. Action: Delete requirement for number of free file slots (or at the very least make it optional and only when meaningful). _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 208 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 355) [DWC-XCU-122] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 304 Line: 11113 Section: 4.df Problem: (df utility) The "the following do the same" is awkward English. Action: Change "the following do the same" on P304, L11113 to "the following produces the same output". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 209 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 356) [DWC-XCU-123] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 304 Line: 11123 Section: 4.df Problem: (df utility) The rationale on P304, L11123 needs to be updated. Action: Change "the base standard and the UPE" on P304, L11123 to "this document". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 210 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 90) [DT-XCU-87] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group believes that the INPUT FILES section restricts the file type to text files. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 307 Line: 11221 Section: diff Problem: I frankly doubt that ANY extant diff program meets the letter of this specification exactly. As written it does not allow for "Binary files differ...." messages, and diff on binary files would create such an unacceptable mess that no customer would actually accept the thing. Action: If files, or pairs of files, are found to be other than text files, they may be reported as follows... I'll write precise text if there's consensus that we can arrive at a single format; if not, implementation-defined is OK. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 211 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 357) [DWC-XCU-124] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 309 Line: 11281-11282 Section: 4.diff Problem: (diff utility) Two output formats have been put on a single line (causing the second format to overflow onto a second line). Action: Insert a line break before '"---' on P309, L11281 and join the new line with P309, L11282. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 212 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 358) [DWC-XCU-125] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 311 Line: 11382 Section: 4.diff Problem: (diff utility) The rationale has not kept up with features pulled in from the Single UNIX Specification. Action: Delete P311, L11382. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 213 eggert@twinsun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 3) {1} Thu Jun 10, 10:29pm +0100 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_212 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 311 Line: 11382 Section: diff Problem: The diff rationale says ``The -f flag was not included] as it provides no additional functionality over the -e option.'' However, the -f option was added in Issue 6. Action: Remove this sentence from the rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 214 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 359) [DWC-XCU-126] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 312 Line: 11393 Section: 4.diff Problem: (diff utility) Section 1.6.2 of this document talks about features inherited from XSH. This section should use the same terminology. Action: Change "POSIX.1" on P312, L11393 to "XSH". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 215 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 360) [DWC-XCU-127] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 312 Line: 11400-11401 Section: 4.diff Problem: (diff utility) The line break between P312, L11400 and L11401 is not needed. This entire output format will easily fit on a single line. Even if the line break was needed, there shouldn't be a backslash character at the end of the first line in a file format notation output format. Action: Change: "diff %s %s %s\n", , , \ on P312, L11400-11401 to: "diff %s %s %s\n", , , _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 216 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 361) [DWC-XCU-128] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: no action requ'd _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 313,314 Line: 11428-11438,11492 Section: 4.dirname Problem: (dirname utility) See also my comment DWC-XCU-92. Donn Terry raised the question of whether the pathname "//" should continue to have implementation-defined meaning in his comment on XBD page 37, line 908 (Pathname definition). If the decision is made to disallow implementation- defined behavior for "//" at the start of a pathname, the basename and dirname utilities need to be adjusted as well. Action: If and only if the implementation-dependant meaning of exactly two leading characters in a pathname is removed in XBD's definition of pathname, make the following changes to dirname: 1. Delete P313, L11428. 2. Change "2." on P313, L11429 to "1.". 3. Change "3 to 8" on P313, L11430 to "2 to 6". 4. Change "3." on P313, L11431 to "2.". 5. Change "4." on P313, L11432 to "3.". 6. Change "5 to 8" on P313, L11433 to "4 to 6". 7. Change "5." on P313, L11434 to "4.". 8. Delete P313, L11435-11436. 9. Change "7." on P313, L11437 to "5.". 10.Change "8." on P313, L11438 to "6.". 11.Change "/ or //" on P314, L11492 to "/". 12.Add a new paragraph after P315, L11514: Earlier versions of this document set specified implementation-defined behavior for pathnames starting with exactly two characters. At that time the basename and dirname utilities provided similar implementation-defined behavior. Now that // has consistent behavior in pathnames, the basename and dirname utilities have been updated to provide corresponding defined behavior. _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 217 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 362) [DWC-XCU-129] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 315 Line: 11507,11509 Section: 4.dirname Problem: (dirname utility) By putting string in quotes in constant width font, you specify that the literal string consisting of the characters , , , , , and is the string to be evaluated. I don't believe that is the intent in either of these two places. Action: Put "string" on P315, L11507 into italic font. Put "string" on P315, L11509 into italic font. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 218 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 363) [DWC-XCU-130] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 315 Line: 11512 Section: 4.dirname Problem: (dirname utility) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Also note that pathname is now defined in XBD, not XSH (or POSIX.1). Action: Change "the POSIX.1 definition of pathname" on P315, L11512 to "the definition of pathname (see XBD, Section 2.199, pathname)". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 219 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 364) [DWC-XCU-131] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 316 Line: 11526 Section: 4.du Problem: (du utility) See also my editorial comment DWC-XCU-1. There is an extraneous space in the synopsis. Action: Change "[-a| -s]" on P316, L11526 to "[-a|-s]". _____________________________________________________________________________ editorial Enhancement Request Number 220 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 365) [DWC-XCU-132] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 316-317 Line: 11545-11570 Section: 4.du Problem: (du utility) It looks like some accidental shading happened when the obsolescent -r option in XCU5 was removed from this draft. Action: Remove the shading from P316-317, L11545-11570. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 221 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 91) [DT-XCU-88] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 319 Line: 11659 Section: echo Problem: This is another "wimpy" shall that really, really needs to be a shall: in this case we REALLY mean it. Action: "Implementations SHALL not support any options.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 222 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 92) [DT-XCU-89] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the consensus was to reject the proposed action _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 319 Line: 11664 Section: echo Problem: As Homer Simpson would say, "Duh!". This is leakage from a specific implementation (System V) and should be done via the printf command. Action: Delete escapes. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 223 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 366) [DWC-XCU-133] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 320 Line: 11720-11721,11724,11726 Section: 4.echo Problem: (echo utility) The application usage in this draft didn't keep up with changes to the operands section. Action: Change "It is" on P320, L11720 to "In ISO POSIX-2, it was". Change "that are not" on P320, L11720 to "that were not". Change "are omitted" on P320, L11721 to "were omitted". Change "The XSI echo is" on P320, L11724 to "The historic System V echo and the current requirements in this document are". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 224 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 93) [DT-XCU-90] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Its out of scope to perform the suggested action. Also it was felt that there are still significant users of the utility. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 323 Line: 11777 Section: ed Problem: Someone's gotta do it... is it time to declare this beast (ed) obsolescent? I suspect we can't quite get rid of it yet, but it's excuse for standardization gets weaker all the time as more editors come on line, the existence (not just popularity) of mechanical terminals continues to decline, and there are better tools to use in most cases in shell scripts. If it's excess baggage, let's get rid of it, or at least notify folks that NEXT time it'll be gone. The only downside to this is that there are a lot of "defaults" that default to ed (rather than to ex, probably). Action: Consider flagging as obsolescent; change default editors now. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 225 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 367) [DWC-XCU-134] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 323,333 Line: 11796,12215-12216 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) Now that the obsolescent - option has been removed, we need to specify that the results are unspecified if a file operand is -. We shouldn't require implementations to stop supporting this "feature" even though it is no longer specified by the standard. Without this change, implementations will be required to treat the command: ed - as a request to edit a file named -. In the 1992 version of POSIX.2, it would have been equivalent to the command: ed -s The application usage on this point talks about a "single-minus form" instead of a "single-minus option". The application usage needs to also mention that - is not required to be accepted as a file operand. Action: Add a new sentence to the end of the description of the file operand on P323, L11796: If the file operand is -, the results are unspecified. Change "single-minus form" on P333, L12215 to "- option". Add the following to the end of the paragraph on P333, L12215-12216: Using - as a file operand now produces unspecified results. This allows implementations to continue to support the former required behavior. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 226 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 368) [DWC-XCU-135] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change ". is left at" on P329, L12040 to "the current line is set to". Change "at the addressed line" on P329, L12041 to "to the addressed line". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 329 Line: 12040-12041 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) The text ". is left at the last inserted line" is different from all of the other command descriptions that talk about how the current line is changed (or not) by that command. Action: Change ". is left at" on P329, L12040 to "the current line is set to". Change "at the addressed line" on P329, L12041 to "ot the addressed line". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 227 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 94) [DT-XCU-91] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 329 Line: 12050 Section: ed Problem: Typo: we're talking about k (in ed) not m. Action: "m" -> "k". _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 228 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 369) [DWC-XCU-136] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 329 Line: 12056 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) See also my comment DWC-XCU-21. Cross references to other books should be more explicit. Since these documents will be updated as a set (unlike IEEE Stds 1003.1 and 1003.2 which were not updated together), there is no reason why references to other volumes from XBD, XCU, and XSH should be limited to chapters. Action: Change "in the table in XBD specification, Chapter 3, File Format Notation" on P329, L12056 to "in XBD specification, Table 3-1, Escape Sequences and Associated Actions". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 229 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 370) [DWC-XCU-137] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 330,332 Line: 12097,12167 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) On P326, L11926-11927 in this draft it says that there has to be one or more blanks between the r and w commands and the following file command argument. A space appears in the r and w command synopses before the file operand in POSIX.2, but they have disappeared in this draft. Action: Change "($)r[file]" on P330, L12097 to "($)r [file]". Change "($)w[file]" on P332, L12167 to "($)w [file]". _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 230 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 371) [DWC-XCU-138] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 331,332 Line: 12118,12120,12123,12127,12176,12178 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) In POSIX.2 and in many places in this description of the ed utility you specify characters without quotes. When you are talking about characters (as opposed to strings), the characters should not be in double quotes. You can either (consistently) use single quotes, or skip the quotes entirely (you're not talking about character constants in C source here). However, you do need commas to separate elements of a list. Action: Change '"&"' on P331, L12118 to '&'. Change '"%"' on P331, L12120 to '%'. Change '"%"' on P331, L12123 to '%' in both places. Change '"&", "\" "%" or digits' on P331, L12127 to '&, \, %, or digits'. Change '"!"' on P332, L12176 to '!'. Change '"!"' on P332, L12178 to '!'. _____________________________________________________________________________ comment Enhancement Request Number 231 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 372) [DWC-XCU-139] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The editor will fix the wording appropriately in line with the style discussions _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 334-335 Line: 12240,12246,12269,12283,12286,12288 Section: 4.ed Problem: (ed utility) In the rest of this document set, references to documents in the set are listed as "this document", "XBD specification", "XCU specification", or "XSH specification". But, in the ed rationale you refer to "POSIX.2" instead. The use should be consistent throughout the set. Action: Change "POSIX.2" on P334, L12240 to "this document". Change "POSIX.2" on P334, L12246 to "this document", twice. Change "POSIX.2" on P335, L12269 to "this document". Change "POSIX.2" on P335, L12283 to "this document". Change "POSIX.2" on P335, L12286 to "this document". Change "POSIX.2" on P335, L12288 to "this document's". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 232 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 95) [DT-XCU-92] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 334 Line: 12241 Section: ed Problem: What's a -"" option? Action: In .2 it's just a hyphen. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 233 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 96) [DT-XCU-93] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is for XSI systems and should be retained _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 342 Line: 12559 Section: ex Problem: Intermediate directories are an implementation detail; delete all discussion. See 13484, 13194. Action: Delete intermediate directory stuff. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 234 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 97) [DT-XCU-94] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge (future drafts before the .2b merge will include a reviewers note stating that this utility man page will be replaced) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 344 Line: 12652 Section: ex Problem: English. Action: Change to: "If more than the expected number of addresses are given in a range, the 1, 2, or 3 (depending on the maximum number accepted by the command) most recently entered will be used, the rest ignored." _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 235 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 104) [DT-XCU-101] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 359 Line: 359 Section: ex Problem: "change" isn't quite the right word here. Enable is closer. Action: Change -> enable. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 236 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 98) [DT-XCU-95] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 347 Line: 12772 Section: ex Problem: This does not match my current vi, nor my recollection of other ones. At least in visual mode, the line number last accessed in the file the last time it was edited is used. Action: Change to: "If the file had previously been edited [in visual mode?], and was the alternate file, the line number shall be restored to the line that was current at the time that file was being edited in the current editor session. Implementations may remember positions in other files previously edited. If the file had not been previously edited in the current session, in visual mode it defaults to the first line of the file, in non-visual mode to the last line.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 237 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 99) [DT-XCU-96] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 348 Line: 12812 Section: ex Problem: "Is a ) " is unreadable. Quote, and blank separate, the ")". Action: Make readable. (Use CW?) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 238 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 100) [DT-XCU-97] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 349 Line: 12827 Section: ex Problem: Not all terminals have function keys (but admittedly today, most). See line 13478 Action: add "if any" after "numbered function keys". Delete any now-irrelevant rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 239 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 101) [DT-XCU-98] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 349 Line: 12848 Section: ex Problem: Quoting problem. This is unreadable. First, at least in my copy, I can't be sure there IS a difference between the first and second instance of some doubled single quote character. Secondly, what characters ARE they. Action: Set in CW font or otherwise make readable. Also, NAME (in English) the characters. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 240 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 102) [DT-XCU-99] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 354 Line: 13055 Section: ex Problem: Spelling: last I heard it was American. Action: Centre -> center. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 241 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 103) [DT-XCU-100] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 358 Line: 13198 Section: ex Problem: Edcompatable isn't. See line 13485. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 242 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 105) [DT-XCU-102] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 362 Line: 13323 Section: ex Problem: The specification of the interpretation of the tags file list is weak: if tags files are specified in several directories, are the files searched for relative to the directory in which the matching tagfile entry is found, or relative to the current working directory. Experimentally (with exactly one vi), it's relative to the current working directory, which makes tags files not containing absolute pathnames pretty much useless if you wish to use more than one in different directories. Action: Choose (in order of preference). 1) Say "When a tag is matched, if the pathname found in the tags file is a relative pathname, it shall be resolved with respect to the directory in which the corresponding tags file was found." 2) Add a "generate absolute pathnames" option to ctags (and note the reason for it here.) 3) Add rationale noting the deficiency. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 243 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 106) [DT-XCU-103] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 363 Line: 13383 Section: ex Problem: Possible trap: what if the intent of some "ex -c" is to read, edit, and write a file, and an error occurs in the command string. Having it drop into interactive mode would be strange. I see two alternatives: "yup, that's what happens" which implies an application usage note warning of this, or say that "an explicit xit command is always honored, even when skipping". Action: Pick one, do it. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 244 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 107) [DT-XCU-104] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 365 Line: 13462 Section: ex Problem: I don't object to the recovery stuff, but this appears to say it was not included. Action: Delete this statement. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 245 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 108) [DT-XCU-105] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This issue deferred until the .2b merge _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 366 Line: 13491 Section: ex Problem: Huh? Is this paragraph trying to say it's in or out....; the bit about "unexpected places" seems to be a reason to exclude, not include. Action: Probably delete, certainly clarify. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 246 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 109) [DT-XCU-106] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Too many applications depend on this utility . _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 372 Line: 13763 Section: expr Problem: Another thing to consider making obsolete (the whole of expr). Action: Consider for obsolescence. _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 247 hpa@transmeta.com Bug in False (rdvk# 1) Wed, 2 Jun 1999 01:36:06 -0700 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the group felt that the current wording was intentional and to change it might cause application breakage (even though they be nonconforming apps) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 374 Line: 13005 Section: false Problem: The current phrasing of the SYNOPSIS, OPTIONS and OPERANDS for the false and true commands imply that the behaviour of this command is undefined when options are passed. GNU sh-utils, in particular, have used this definition as a motivation for implementing options that change the behaviour of this command (--help and --version). A number of shell scripts and administrator hacks, however, rely on the classical behaviour of these commands, which is to ignore all arguments, including, where relevant, argv[0]. I therefore recommend that this behaviour be codified. Action: Here and also at page 787 section true comment Replace the OPTIONS and OPERANDS sections from "None." to "This command ignores all options/operands." _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 248 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 110) [DT-XCU-107] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 379 Line: 14029 Section: fc Problem: Capitalization. Action: "this" -> "This". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 249 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 111) [DT-XCU-108] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 383 Line: 14170 Section: file Problem: "file" (command name) in synopsis is wrong font. Action: -> CW font. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 250 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 112) [DT-XCU-109] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Its not that simple - Which object file format? and how can you tell the difference between object files and files in a particular codeset? codeset files _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 384 Line: 14233 Section: file Problem: Given the development option, this standard refers enough to .o and a.out format files that it's reasonable to add them to this table, and since that's one of the primary uses of file... Action: Add lines: object file object (result of -c option to c89 or fort77) executable executable. (usual result of c89 or fort77) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 251 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 113) [DT-XCU-110] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_171 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 388 Line: 14374 Section: find Problem: Octal mode: see chmod for details. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 252 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 114) [DT-XCU-111] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: See ERN 155 for rationale _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 400 Line: 14865 Section: fort77 Problem: See similar on c89: these sizes are impractically small. Action: Whatever happens to c89. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 253 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 115) [DT-XCU-112] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 14897-14898 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 401 Line: 14897 Section: fort77 Problem: (Question about new language versions.) Yes, we need an interface, but as a SEPARATE option. (Ditto c9x and c++.) We don't want to mandate specific compilers beyond the minimum. Action: Whatever is decided. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 254 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 116) [DT-XCU-113] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 401 Line: 14928,14832 Section: fort77 Problem: Inconsistent spacing. Action: "-O0" -> "-O 0" (as required by the synopsis). (Several places.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 255 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 117) [DT-XCU-114] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete "XBS5" on line 15490 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 417 Line: 15490 Section: getconf Problem: What's XBS5? It's not defined here or XBD. Action: Define. Consider whether it's applicable. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 256 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 374) [DWC-XCU-141] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is on the issues list (c9x alignment issue) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 417-419 Line: 15492-15555 Section: 4.getconf Problem: (getconf utility) See also my objection DWC-XCU-100. Given that this revision of the POSIX standards provides a different (and possibly incompatible) programming environment due to the revision of the C standard (see also DWC-XCU-97), we need to use a different set of macros to determine which options are needed to provide the intended programming environments distinct from those used for conformance to the Single UNIX Specification, version 2. Action: Change all occurrences of the substring "XBS5" on P417-419, L15492-15555 to "XBS6". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 257 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 118) [DT-XCU-115] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: replace last sentences 15806-15868 with "if more than one of the calling shell and any of its functions use getopt to parse arguments the results are unspecified" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 423 Line: 15718 Section: getopts Problem: This paragraph says that setting OPTIND to any value other than 1 is an unspecified operation. On line 15805 it suggests that save/restore of OPTIND is possible, and other changes are potentially reasonable. Make up your mind. Action: No, I don't know enough to suggest a fix on this one. (This may require an action item.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 258 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 119) [DT-XCU-116] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 428 Line: 15891 Section: grep Problem: The text here could be misleading, given the prior use of "entire". It could imply that the ERE had to match the whole input line (not just some part of the line). Action: "an input line" -> "some part of an input line". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 259 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 120) [DT-XCU-117] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The proposed action is out of scope _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 433 Line: 16052 Section: hash Problem: The hash command would seem to have NO effect whatsoever on the portability of applications or users (except possibly the sense of system administration, which is out of scope). Action: Delete it: it's implementation details. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 260 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 121) [DT-XCU-118] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 440 Line: 16275 Section: iconv Problem: The output of iconv can be in any codeset; in particular it need not contain ANY newline characters in the current codeset (as distinct from the output codeset), thus it is not a text file on the local system (or in the current codeset). Action: Replace with. The standard output is a file, which if interpreted in the codeset specified by the -t option, is a text file. (Note, the input files don't have this problem, but that may itself be a problem: should they required to be textfiles in the INPUT codeset?) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 261 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 122) [DT-XCU-119] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject___X_ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The proposed action is out of scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 445 Line: 16436 Section: ipcrm Problem: Since I objected to the presence of the heavyweight System V ipc stuff (piecewise) in XSH, I guess I should be consistent and object to this, too. There's no use for it if the XSH side of things is not present. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 262 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 123) [DT-XCU-120] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The proposed action is out of scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 447 Line: 16520 Section: ipcs Problem: Since I'm being consistent... Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 263 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 124) [DT-XCU-121] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Duplicate 16842 after 16840 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 454 Line: 16840 Section: jobs Problem: Clarity: is "Stopped" (no further explanation) intended to be synonymous with "Stopped (SIGTSTP)". I presume yes, but it would be clearer in this format to say so. Or is "Stopped" related to "SIGSTOP"? If so, say so. Action: Just add (in normal font) "or" after "Stopped", or add "Stopped by a SIGSTOP signal". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 264 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 125) [DT-XCU-122] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The proposed action is out of scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 454 Line: 16849 Section: jobs Problem: Is "Suspended" intended as a synonym for "Stopped". Presuming yes, is there a constituency left for "Suspended". If not, drop it. Action: Drop (if possible). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 265 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 126) [DT-XCU-123] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: A reviewers note will be inserted to request reviewers feedback on this example: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 457 Line: 16933 Section: join Problem: Although to database experts, this may be clear, it's not necessarily to the rest of us: are lines reused to make a join: e.g. given: fa: a x a y a b fb: a p Is the output a x p a y p a z p or something else. Experimentally, it's as above. Action: After 16933 add: If the same key appears more than once in either file, all possible pairwise combinations are output, in unspecified [or can we do better?] order. Add to examples: fa: a x a y a z fb: a p a q Yields: a x p a x q a y p a y q a z p a z q _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 266 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 128) [DT-XCU-125] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is in informative change history. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 460 Line: 17056 Section: join Problem: Since the obsolescent form (see line 17094) was deleted (good), this remark no longer makes sense. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 267 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 127) [DT-XCU-124] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group disagreed with the proposed action, they believe the rationale is useful and should remain. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 460 Line: 17063,17069 Section: join Problem: These two paragraphs say about the same thing. Action: Trim to one. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 268 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 129) [DT-XCU-126] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group felt that this was an undesirable action (no risk of reaching the limit any time soon) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 462 Line: 17100 Section: kill Problem: At least, I think this is a comment.... This affects so many places (and I don't want to type them all!) that I'll put it here (where I thought of it) and we can figure out what to do. (Yes, I'll take an action item to write text on this one.) Given the rules about "wait" and the fact that it returns a one-byte quantity, and that the high bit is taken to indicate "death by signal", there is an implied limit of 128 on the possible number of signals in POSIX (or at least the number that can be reported by wait()). Although I don't see a risk of reaching that limit anytime soon, allowing for user signals we're at least halfway there now. Action: Put a warning (really to future standardizers, but to implementors as well) that there's a potential problem. See if we can finesse our way out of it before it becomes a problem. (Hoping it never becomes a problem is not unreasonable, but we should explicitly make that decision.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 269 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 130) [DT-XCU-127] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: on line 17131 replace "in the process group" with "in the current process group" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 462 Line: 17131 Section: kill Problem: Clarity. Action: "in the process group" -> "in the current process group" or "the process group of the calling process". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 270 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 131) [DT-XCU-128] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 17138-17140 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 462 Line: 17139 Section: kill Problem: Job control isn't an option. Action: Fix to whatever the standard phrasing is now. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 271 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 132) [DT-XCU-129] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 470 Line: 17454 Section: lex Problem: The "As an exception to the..." is not helpful. Action: Set the literals in CW font, and the variables in Roman. Thus, the < and > would be CW, and the word state (or state1) would be in Roman (possibly enclosed in *Roman* < and >) and all should be unambiguous. (A thought: if there's any question of being able to determine visually whether a character is CW or not, we need to choose a better CW font: one that comes to mind is one where every character is underscored; since that can't happen otherwise, it makes them visually unique. There are other choices, but the general theme is "choose an ugly font for the computer stuff... that's what everyone expects anyway :-) ). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 272 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 133) [DT-XCU-130] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: On line 17463: change "expression x." to "expression x (x is an instance of 'trailing context', further defined below)". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 470 Line: 17466 Section: lex Problem: The term "trailing context" is used here for the first time, and dangles; it later becomes clear, but at this point it's pretty obscure. Action: On line 17643: change "expression x." to "expression x (x is an instance of 'trailing context', further defined below)". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 273 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 134) [DT-XCU-131] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: No action was provided. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 471 Line: 17487 Section: lex Problem: The definition for character-in-hex provides no way to delimit the character if the character that must follow is (coincidentally) a hex digit. The rationale emphasizes this (17706). Action: Provide (at least as rationale) an idiom that a user can use to make the required lexical separation. I don't know what that might be. (Parens, possibly?) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 274 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 135) [DT-XCU-132] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The normative/rationale text will be reviewed for lex , to align with that in P1003.2 (AJ to take an action) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 472 Line: 17533 Section: lex Problem: This is (mostly?) escaped rationale. Action: Back in its cage! _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 275 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 136) [DT-XCU-133] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Retain as XSI shaded _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 478 Line: 17763 Section: link Problem: link (and unlink) really serve little purpose except when the goal is to step outside the standard. Specifically, the only operation I know of that these can perform that ln can't is to create a hard link to a directory, which is something that POSIX doesn't support (for good reasons, too). Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 276 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 137) [DT-XCU-134] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add a reviewers note : "This page will be updated to address symbolic links when P1003.2b is merged" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 480 Line: 17833 Section: ln Problem: This may be in the process of getting fixed by the inclusion of .2b, but for the record (and given that XSH has symbolic links), the -s option is needed. (And of course other changes to pax, etc.) Action: Keep as placemarker until it does happen. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 277 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 141) [DT-XCU-138] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group felt this was a useful facility and should be retained as MAN _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 497 Line: 18448 Section: lp Problem: Banner page: overspecified particularly for small systems, particularly those that implement lp as a trivial cat script. Action: Delete, or make some handwave about "large systems". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 278 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 139) [DT-XCU-136] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete rationale at 18619-18629 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 498 Line: 18749 Section: lp Problem: (Topic: the -o option.) See line 18619. It says it all. Action: Justify as portably useful, or delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 279 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 138) [DT-XCU-135] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: move sentence to rationale and rework: on some historical systems the .... the request ID can be used on systems supporting the historical cancel and lpstat utilities." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 499 Line: 18534 Section: lp Problem: Neither lpstat nor cancel are included in this document. Action: Probably delete whole shaded addition, but?!? _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 280 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 140) [DT-XCU-137] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 501 Line: 18638 Section: lp Problem: banner, lpstat not in this document. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 281 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 142) [DT-XCU-139] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the MAN shading back to XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 502 Line: 18683 Section: ls Problem: (ls -f) 1) In 20+ years of UNIX hacking, I've never seen this used, and never used it (except to see the mess it can make). It's a hangover from the days of dfix and ifix (pre fsck). 2) It may not apply to some systems where directories are not readable by ordinary means (and thus there's no mechanism to force to do this). Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 282 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 143) [DT-XCU-140] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the MAN shading back to XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 502 Line: 18686 Section: ls Problem: The following additions are either nearly useless or counter- productive. Delete them (or make a better case than occurred last time; see the old rationale): -g -o -p -s (particularly because of holes, it lies!) I can't say much positive about -m or -x either, but I don't find them quite as objectionable. Action: Delete them. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 283 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 144) [DT-XCU-141] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (note no action requ'd) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 510 Line: 18965 Section: m4 Problem: This was intentionally omitted last time due to limited scope of use. Action: In this case, I concur with the addition; it appears to have lots more usage now. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 284 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 145) [DT-XCU-142] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 512 Line: 19049 Section: m4 Problem: The term "defining text" is undefined. It's inferable given enough reading, but it should be said. Action: Add: In the descriptions below, the term "defining text" refers to the value of the macro: the second argument to the define macro, among other things. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 285 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 146) [DT-XCU-143] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Ask the question posed in the problem in a reviewers note for the next draft _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 512 Line: 19064 Section: m4 Problem: What base is this sort of arithmetic performed in: decimal, octal or what? (Same for incr, eval, etc.) Is the output base retained? Action: I'd prefer: The input string is taken to be a numeric constant as in C, that is decimal unless prefixed with 0 indicating octal, or 0x indicating hexadecimal. The result is in the same base as the input. [Decimal would be OK.] I'd accept (based on tests on one implementation): The input string is taken to be a decimal number. The result is a decimal number. It is an error to include any characters but decimal digits. This should be applied globally wherever numeric input is taken. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 286 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 147) [DT-XCU-144] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add this problem as a reviewers note _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 512 Line: 19070 Section: m4 Problem: Buffer 0 seems strange: it's one of the 10 buffers, and thus should be a diversion buffer, but a 19704 it implies that it's the name of the main output. Which is it (or are there really only 9 diversion buffers?). Action: Don't know the answer. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 287 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 148) [DT-XCU-145] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 512 Line: 19092 Section: m4 Problem: "It is an error..." presumably does NOT apply to the first argument to eval. (See also my objection to incr() above.) Action: Change to "It is an error to specify the second or third argument...". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 288 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 149) [DT-XCU-146] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Put a reviewers note in that says : Here are an alternative two paragraphs, which are better? _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 513 Line: 19096 Section: m4 Problem: ifelse muddled. Action: Suggested replacement: This function takes 3n+0 or 3n+1 arguments. For each group of 3 arguments, if the first and second are the same (after substituting the defining text if either argument is a macro name), the result is the third of the group. If the strings are not equal, and no arguments remain, the defining text is null. If one argument remains, it becomes the defining text. If three or more arguments remain, the process is repeated with the new group of three arguments. If 3n+2 arguments are provided, the evaluation proceeds as above, but a warning is generated and the last argument ignored. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 289 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 150) [DT-XCU-147] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group reviewed the problem, but did not believe it was true. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 513 Line: 19111 Section: m4 Problem: "any non-numeric characters". I suspect the real meaning is "a string not recognizable as a number to the eval macro". (That is, is 0x1 illegal? Experimentally, not.) Action: Use phrase above. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 290 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 151) [DT-XCU-148] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group felt that the text is intentionally as it is. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 513 Line: 19118 Section: m4 Problem: Number mismatch. Action: "arguments, replacing it" -> "argument, replacing it" or is it "arguments, replacing each"? _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 291 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 152) [DT-XCU-149] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 515 Line: 19208 Section: m4 Problem: Not true: the referenced text does NOT exclude & (and probably should). Action: Change 19087 to exclude unary &. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 292 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 153) [DT-XCU-150] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 516 Line: 19233 Section: mailx Problem: Unclear. "Them"... which "them"? Action: -> "default place to find new mail.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 293 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 154) [DT-XCU-151] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 517 Line: 19276 Section: mailx Problem: Add at middle of 19276: When in receive mode, user commands are accepted from stdin. Action: AS ABOVE. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 294 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 155) [DT-XCU-152] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group believe the text is adequate as is . Its also worth noting that 1003.2b reworks some of this utility. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 519 Line: 19534 Section: mailx Problem: Fuzzy. Try the below. Action: If the interrupt was received while sending mail (either in Receive Mode or in Send mode): - a message is written - a subsequent interrupt, with no other intervening characters received on stdin, is required to abort the message: In receive mode, such interrupts cause a command prompt to be written. In send mode, such an interrupt causes mailx terminate with a non-zero status. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 295 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 156) [DT-XCU-153] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The text is ok as is, it is the last message _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 521 Line: 19453 Section: mailx Problem: Does $ refer to the last message, or the last undeleted message, or is it context dependent like - and ^? Action: Probably context dependent; copy wording from ^ about undelete. (But I'm guessing.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 296 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 157) [DT-XCU-154] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: retain as XSI, make changes to the rationale to accommodate the XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 523 Line: 19525 Section: 523 Problem: Delete debug (see line 20029). Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 297 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 158) [DT-XCU-155] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: retain as XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 524 Line: 19563 Section: mailx Problem: Delete onehop: uucp is nearly dead, and this is meaningless outside of uucp mail. (Yes, I'm objecting to uucp, too.) Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 298 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 159) [DT-XCU-156] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 525 Line: 19613,19614 Section: mailx Problem: Typography: the ) of the parenthetical remarks on these two lines should not be bold. (Make the computer input CW, too.) Action: As above. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 299 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 160) [DT-XCU-157] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 526 Line: 19644 Section: mailx Problem: Clarity. Action: Add "See the metoo command as well.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 300 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 161) [DT-XCU-158] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: need to look further into this - action assigned to Mark Brown _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 528 Line: 19717 Section: mailx Problem: Garbled. It would appear that the second sentence in EACH paragraph applies to both forms. Action: Rearrange to make completely true. (Or delete fo/F command, that's fine too; see line 20067.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 301 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 162) [DT-XCU-159] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: deferred pending 1003.2b merge, since this section is reworked _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 531 Line: 19858 Section: mailx Problem: "that has not been undeleted"... and if it's been deleted, undeleted, and deleted, then what. Action: Change to "and is currently marked as deleted" (2 places). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 302 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 163) [DT-XCU-160] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add at 19945 ~r !command _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 534 Line: 19947 Section: mailx Problem: Probable omission: no ~r !command. Action: Add as another alternative. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 303 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 164) [DT-XCU-161] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change to "macro=value". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 539 Line: 20129 Section: make Problem: On the synopsis: 1) It should be 'macro' (singlar). 2) =name is wrong: name implies a single word, and we know we can do more than that. (see also 20197, 20199, 20232). Action: Change to "macro=value". or "macro=string" or... _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 304 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 165) [DT-XCU-162] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: out of scope, sccs part of XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 541 Line: 20247 Section: make Problem: PROJECTDIR goes with SCCS, so drop it. (See also 20295, 20376, 20672). Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 305 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 166) [DT-XCU-163] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 544 Line: 20352 Section: make Problem: More quoting. Action: Flag to fix when the answer is known. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 306 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 167) [DT-XCU-164] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: check pdf/postscript - they are different in the source _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 552 Line: 20711 Section: make Problem: The same character appears twice. Action: Change one to (I think) ` (backquote). _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 307 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 168) [DT-XCU-165] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 555 Line: 20828 Section: make Problem: Double (or more) spacing makes this a mess. Action: Make readable (single space). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 308 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 169) [DT-XCU-166] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 573 Line: 21497 Section: more Problem: This implies that stderr is opened for input and output usually. I agree with that, the objection (hich (coincidentally) I filed against XSH takes more weight. Action: Find right place in main document, and say it there. I believe the right place is under "standard error" in XBD. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 309 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 170) [DT-XCU-167] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: reverse all MAN shading back to XSI for the nm utility, fixup change history and rationale as appropriate _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 600 Line: 22488 Section: nm Problem: The definition of -f is so vague as to be useless. Action: Delete. (Or make specific, which I don't think can be done.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 310 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 171) [DT-XCU-168] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: back out MAN->XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 600 Line: 22491,22501 Section: nm Problem: -o and -x were deleted for a reason last time; see 22609, 22598. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 311 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 172) [DT-XCU-169] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: global MAN -> XSI for the od utility _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 608 Line: 22758 Section: od Problem: We got rid of all the old syntax last time; let's leave it that way. Action: Delete all the new "old syntax stuff" vis. the current .2. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 312 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 173) [DT-XCU-170] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 616 Line: 23102 Section: paste Problem: "is be" is not English. Action: .2 has it as "shall not be" which is correct; however any reasonable guess at the actual text present would have lead to the wrong conclusion. 1) Restore old text. 2) Make sure other "not"s have not been scrambled. (Editors.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 313 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 174) [DT-XCU-171] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: We could not find the problem (perhaps a line number wrong)? _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 623 Line: 23338 Section: patch Problem: Unclear. Is this a "takes the first successful?". Action: add " ... taking the first name successfully found.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 314 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 175) [DT-XCU-172] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The group believe that the text should stay as it is. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 623 Line: 23341 Section: patch Problem: Is this trying to say that if exactly 1 name is found, it is taken, but if two are, neither are? Action: If so, say so. If not, say what you do mean. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 315 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 176) [DT-XCU-173] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete para at 23401 at 23405 change "another" -> "a" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 624 Line: 23401 Section: patch Problem: 1) This is false (but should be true... delete the SCCS stuff). 2) We ignore our own rationale and don't make it an option!. Action: Delete SCCS stuff. If not, at least follow our own recommendation! _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 316 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 177) [DT-XCU-174] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: will be fixed in style cleanup _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 633 Line: 23724 Section: pax Problem: The word "issue" does not apply to POSIX. Action: Change to whatever "this standard" becomes when the editors finish that discussion. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 317 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 178) [DT-XCU-175] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: the text means what it says _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 634 Line: 23768 Section: pax Problem: This is ambiguous, but I think it means "restore the time that was found (via stat()) before the file was read". Presuming it does, it cannot always be done, because there are files that can be read but which the user doesn't have the permission to change the times for. (The other interpretation applies to what goes on the tape, but I don't think that applies for lots of reasons.) Action: Replace with: If the user has the appropriate privilege, restore the access time of any file read by pax to the time recorded for the file before being read by pax. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 318 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 179) [DT-XCU-176] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 638 Line: 23920 Section: pax Problem: There's a cpio.h (and tar.h) in XSH (soon to be XBD, I hope) that this should refer to. Action: Make proper reference (once it's known). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 319 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 180) [DT-XCU-177] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_317 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 643 Line: 24183 Section: pax Problem: What a wishy-washy mess. This is a standard, be explicit. Action: I did it for -t above. Do it for the rest. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 320 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 181) [DT-XCU-178] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: revert "-f" and shaded text from MAN to XSI delete rationale about -f at 24554 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 649 Line: 24409,24438 Section: pr Problem: -f was deleted for good reasons, see 24550. -p actually now makes sense, and 24554 should be deleted. Action: Delete -f. Delete rat about -p. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 321 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 182) [DT-XCU-179] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 655 Line: 24686 Section: printf Problem: Given the changed meaning of "can" in this document w.r.t. .2, the meaning of this statement appears to change. In .2, it's reasonably interpreted as an observation (because "can" is not special). However, here it seems almost to be escaped normative text (which I don't believe was intended). Make it back into an observation. Action: "Field widths cannot...as" -> "No provision is made in this standard which allow field widths and precisions to be specified as..." _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 322 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 183) [DT-XCU-180] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add rev note "Is the following text normative? Should it be moved elsewhere, if so where?" _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 656 Line: 24703 Section: printf Problem: This sounds normative; move to main body. Action: Move. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 323 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 184) [DT-XCU-181] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Change to "output specified in unspecified. [XSI on]On XSI conformant systems the output format is...." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 665 Line: 25068 Section: ps Problem: Restore -o to it's old description; this presumes too much about the implementation. It hampers not only other "non classical" implementations, but may hamper the evolution of even System V itself, because technology will probably make some of the concepts irrelevant. Action: Delete new text, restore old. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 324 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 185) [DT-XCU-182] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: action on Frank _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 677 Line: 25531 Section: renice Problem: "nice value". See 25538 Action: Change to "system scheduling priority". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 325 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 186) [DT-XCU-183] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The problem statement was not understood. The group feel the text is fine as is. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 682 Line: 25700 Section: rm Problem: Garbled at some point. (.2 was that way.) Action: Change "unlinkable" to "un-unlink()-able" (inclusive of the hyphens to avoid further lossage of the double un). _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 326 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 187) [DT-XCU-184] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The meaning is covered in the front matter _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 686 Line: 25885 Section: rmdir Problem: This is a real stretch to conclude this from what it says under "Used only for diagnostic messages." It wouldn't hurt to be a bit more explicit in the really normative text. Action: Add "In particular, reporting of success is not considered a diagnostic.". (Or some such.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 327 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 188) [DT-XCU-185] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 700 Line: 26431 Section: sed Problem: Nine or 10 wfiles? See 26269. Action: Change to 10 (or revert change at 26269). _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 328 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 189) [DT-XCU-186] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete "This was never documented .... version". _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 701 Line: 26493 Section: sed Problem: Should we? (Allow semicolons.) Action: Issue raised, you decide. I'm inclined toward yes. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 329 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 375) [DWC-XCU-142] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 703 Line: 26515,26517,26519 Section: 4.sh Problem: (sh utility) When the -h option was added to the set special built-in utility, it should have been added to the sh synopses as well. Action: Change "[-abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26515 to "[-abCefhimnuvx]". Change "[+abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26515 to "[+abCefhimnuvx]". Change "[-abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26517 to "[-abCefhimnuvx]". Change "[+abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26517 to "[+abCefhimnuvx]". Change "[-abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26519 to "[-abCefhimnuvx]". Change "[+abCefimnuvx]" on P703, L26519 to "[+abCefhimnuvx]". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 330 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 190) [DT-XCU-187] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Do nothing, this is an LFS requirement. The stat() must not fail even if you have a 32bit shell. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 703 Line: 26524 Section: sh Problem: Huh?!? what does pathname expansion have to do with the size of a file. Is this referring to the size of the pathname or the size of some temporary file? Action: Fix... I don't know how. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 331 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 191) [DT-XCU-188] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 703 Line: 26547 Section: sh Problem: Inconsistent quoting. This inconsistency is worse than whatever it was trying to fix. Use CW. Action: Use CW. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 332 Don.Cragun@eng.sun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 376) [DWC-XCU-143] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 17:22:41 -0700 (PDT) _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 707 Line: 26712,26714,26716 Section: 4.sh Problem: (sh utility) There is no "set -o v" command specified in this document, nor in POSIX.2. There is a "set -o vi" command. See the set special built-in -o option on P113 in this draft. Action: Change "set -o v" on P707, L26712 to "set -o vi" (all in constant width font). Change "set -o v" on P707, L26714 to "set -o vi" (all in constant width font). Change "set -o v" on P707, L26716 to "set -o vi" (all in constant width font). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 333 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 192) [DT-XCU-189] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_332 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 707 Line: 26712 Section: sh Problem: This could be a typo, but it's too serious: it's set -o vi (with the i) in at least two shells I tried. This also matches the original .2. (In both shells I tried, set -o v was an error.) Action: Spell it 'vi' (as intended, I believe). (Several places.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 334 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 193) [DT-XCU-190] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 707 Line: 26725 Section: sh Problem: Spelling. Action: wll -> will. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 335 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 194) [DT-XCU-191] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 708 Line: 26760 Section: sh Problem: (\ followed by erase or kill.) Compare this to 27149. This was intentionally dropped, per that rationale. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 336 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 195) [DT-XCU-192] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is out of scope. An interpretation request would need to be filed to bring this in scope. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 709 Line: 26775 Section: sh Problem: This text would appear to require that each editing operation make a new copy. Action: Change "Any command that modifies" to "The first command which modifies". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 337 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 196) [DT-XCU-193] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: fix font for the commands on 26924. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 712 Line: 26925 Section: sh Problem: Somewhat ambiguous. Action: Add "The original f, F, f or T command continues to be remembered without modification." This could be applied to the semicolon operator benignly. Also, fix font for the commands on 26924. _____________________________________________________________________________ objection Enhancement Request Number 338 eggert@twinsun.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 4) {2} Thu Jun 10, 10:55pm +0100 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 721 Line: 27297 Section: sort Problem: The option `-z recsz' has been added to sort. This option should be removed, for several reasons. * `-z recsz' is incompatible with GNU sort, which uses -z to indicate that the input lines are terminated by NUL bytes instead of newlines. GNU sort's use of -z is more useful (and more used in practice) than `-z recsz'. * This option corresponds to a particular implementation of `sort'; it is inappropriate for an implementation-independent spec. * The rationale (page 725 lines 27478-27481) indicates that `sort -z recsz' was omitted for good reason. * I see no justification for adding -z recsz. The CHANGE HISTORY (lines 27501-27504) does not mention it. Action: Remove the description of -z recsz (lines 27297-27302), and remove -z recsz from the synopsis (lines 27271-27273). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 339 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 197) [DT-XCU-194] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_of_338 Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 721 Line: 27297 Section: sort Problem: -z was consciously deleted last time, leave it that way. See 27478. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 340 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 198) [DT-XCU-195] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: this use of "option" is consistently used this way both in XCU and POSIX.2 within the options section of the utility definitions. The is superfluous. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 722 Line: 27343 Section: sort Problem: Clarity. Action: "no option" -> "no command line option". _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 341 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 199) [DT-XCU-196] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete 27608-27609 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 729 Line: 27608 Section: split Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 342 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 200) [DT-XCU-197] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 733 Line: 27723 Section: strings Problem: Is this really necessary... finding internationalized strings (particularly in the face of wide characters if things get unaligned, and for multibyte) seems to be excessively messy; synchronization issues get awfully ugly when you're dealing with raw binary data with no anchor points. Action: Delete this requirement or at least justify it beyond "it sure would be nice". In this case, I believe that justification should include a reference implementation (tested against a Japanese Locale, and wide characters) so that the problems are really understood. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 343 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 201) [DT-XCU-198] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the MAN shaded text to XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 738 Line: 27939 Section: stty Problem: See parallel objection in XSH. Action: Delete most output modes, per .1 (and .2) rationale. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 344 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 202) [DT-XCU-199] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: some editorial cleanup needed _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 743 Line: 28127 Section: stty Problem: I don't follow this: why is in angle-brackets. Action: If I'm right, delete excess angle brackets. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 345 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 203) [DT-XCU-200] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert MAN shadings to XSI (probably need to add a second synopsis line, so that the UP shaded line does not have the XSI extensions on it) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 746 Line: 28246 Section: tabs Problem: (Language-specific options.) This is just a grab-bag of "stuff" much of which is less-than relevant. If you want to leave Fortran, I won't gripe. See 28343. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 346 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 204) [DT-XCU-201] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the MAN shadings to XSI, need to review rationale at 29004 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 762 Line: 28779,28787,28818 Section: test Problem: The precedence of != and =, the -a and -o operators, and parentheses were all discarded consciously and with good reason. See 29004. Action: Revert changes. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 347 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 205) [DT-XCU-202] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 768 Line: 29027 Section: test Problem: Bad line break Action: Delete break (just before "after -d"). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 348 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 206) [DT-XCU-203] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 776 Line: 29338 Section: touch Problem: Ancient history. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 349 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 207) [DT-XCU-204] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Add reviewers note whether leap seconds needs to be 00-61, c9x infers that its only 00-60, and astronomers confirm that double leap seconds do not occur. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 777 Line: 29371 Section: touch Problem: If the date command continues to take dates as input, this needs to be reflected there as well. Action: Depends on what happens to date. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 350 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 208) [DT-XCU-205] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X*_ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: This is italics name, where name is a keyword that has been given a charclass definition in the LC_CTYPE category, thereby providing user defined extensions. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 783 Line: 29566,29571 Section: tr Problem: Typo, probably, but serious. Action: change [:name:] to [:class:] on line 29571. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 351 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 209) [DT-XCU-206] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 783 Line: 29576 Section: tr Problem: Bad Font. Action: Bold "upper". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 352 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 210) [DT-XCU-207] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Replace 29648 with "Unlike some historical implementations, this definition of the tr utility correctly processes..." _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 784 Line: 29648 Section: tr Problem: "Issue 4" doesn't apply. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 353 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 211) [DT-XCU-208] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The utility is not solely for use with libraries. Its an XSI library and the scope of the project says to include it. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 789 Line: 29763 Section: tsort Problem: Is this really necessary. It was before the days of library symbol tables, but now it's pretty marginal. Action: Delete (or make a case other than libraries.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 354 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 212) [DT-XCU-209] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X*__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Octal modes are now required elsewhere. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 798 Line: 30411 Section: umask Problem: Octal permissions. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 355 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 213) [DT-XCU-210] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: (suggest reject) _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 801 Line: 30205 Section: umask Problem: Can we now fix this to be consistent? Action: Determine (and fix if we can). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 356 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 214) [DT-XCU-211] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 804 Line: 30311 Section: uname Problem: Missing hyphen. Action: Restore hyphen in synopsis. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 357 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 215) [DT-XCU-212] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The patent is declared in the PAR. This utility is also marked as an XSI extension and not a requirement for POSIX shell and utilities conformance. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 807 Line: 30405 Section: uncompress Problem: Patent (see compress). There are those that argue the LZW patent only covers compression, not uncompression, so this MIGHT be retainable, but the asymmetry would be difficult to explain. Action: Delete. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 358 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 216) [DT-XCU-213] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Refer to OGTGbase _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 821 Line: 30887 Section: uucp Problem: uucp is nearly completely obsolete (not even home systems use it any more!). It takes a LOT of justification to include this at this point. Action: Delete all uucp family (uustat, uux). _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 359 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 217) [DT-XCU-214] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept___X_ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 844 Line: 31748 Section: vi Problem: Garbled ("is be") (again!?!?!). Action: -> "shall not be" (again!?!?!? -- same concern about meaning change.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 360 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 218) [DT-XCU-215] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 847 Line: 31897 Section: vi Problem: readability. Action: "as is if possible" -> "as is, if possible". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 361 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 219) [DT-XCU-216] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Deferred pending .2b merger _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 851 Line: 32053 Section: vi Problem: Strict reading of this text would appear to prohibit a common extension: balancing the [ and ] characters. (Or quotes, or < >, or whatever.) This is because the search forward for the first character to match is required. Action: Two alternatives: 1) "If the cursor is exactly on an additional implementation-defined character for which matching character search is defined, matching character search is performed for that character." 2) "Additional, implementation-defined characters may be subject to matching search." I slightly prefer the latter. And... I wouldn't mind a bit if [ ] were added to the required set. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 362 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 220) [DT-XCU-217] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: In the source and in our printed matter these are different. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 852 Line: 32077,32090 Section: vi Problem: I see no difference between the characters at these two line numbers, but I presume they're intended to be different. Action: Fix, and *name* the characters involved. (Return to previous context, 32090) should be ` (backtick.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 363 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 221) [DT-XCU-218] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Deferred pending .2b merger _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 854 Line: 32162 Section: vi Problem: Clarity. Action: Add "The remembered f F t or T command is left unchanged.". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 364 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 222) [DT-XCU-219] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Deferred pending .2b merger _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 855 Line: 32188 Section: vi Problem: Another common feature unrepresented: Null search patterns. (This is mentioned under Ex at 13118.) Action: Add text: If the pattern specified in a / command is null, repeat the search from the last / or ? command, in the forward direction. (See regular expressions in ex.) Change the remembered direction (for N or n commands) to forward. (And the converse for the ? command.) (Note, to do a repeated forward search for a string containing /, an easy way to do it is to do a single backwards search (so the operative character is ?, not /) and follow it with / to set the direction, followed by N/n as needed. That's why I want this.) (I haven't run into any versions of vi that don't do this.) _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 365 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 223) [DT-XCU-220] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete rationale on l 32676-32767 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 858 Line: 33270 Section: vi Problem: Reindent. See 32676. Action: Delete one of the rationale or the normative text. No strong opinion which. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 366 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 224) [DT-XCU-221] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: deferred pending .2b merger _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 867 Line: 32617 Section: vi Problem: Two other features (that may have been historically undocumented) which nevertheless are in most versions of vi (including, as far as I remember, the BSD reference implementation) and which are quite useful. (This may not be the precicse place to put this text.) Switch to alternate file Synopsis: control-^ (control-circumflex) Equivalent to typing :e #, including issues of changed buffers and autowrite. Go to tag at cursor Synopsis: control-} (control-right brace) Skip any whitespace at or to the right of the cursor on the current line, and take the \fIword\fr found at that point and use it as if it were the argument to a :tag command. _____________________________________________________________________________ Comment Enhancement Request Number 367 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 225) [DT-XCU-222] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_X___ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: See no need to make the change. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 872 Line: 32833 Section: wait Problem: Why not refer to waitpid() now. It would be more precise. Action: If acceptable, I'll take the AI. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 368 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 226) [DT-XCU-223] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: revert text back from MAN->XSI _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 880 Line: 33079 Section: who Problem: Discussion of the init command presumes the existence of init (or something like it) which in turn unnecessarily constrains implementation details. Delete all options that discuss init. Action: Delete as requested. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 369 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 227) [DT-XCU-224] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept___X_ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 881 Line: 33110 Section: who Problem: Bolding. Action: Bold I and i in "i or I must...". _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 370 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 228) [DT-XCU-225] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Reverse MAN shading to XSI, update rationale and change history accordingly _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 883 Line: 33187 Section: who Problem: The 2 paragraphs of rationale here still apply. Justify or undo the changes. Action: Undo changes. _____________________________________________________________________________ Editorial Enhancement Request Number 371 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 229) [DT-XCU-226] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_X___ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Shading should have stopped on the prior line to -n. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 888 Line: 33373 Section: xargs Problem: I don't believe that -n should be shaded (CHECK .2). Action: Remove shading. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 372 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 230) [DT-XCU-227] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_X___ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: delete "(described as -1 in Issue 3)" on line 33465 _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 890 Line: 33465 Section: xargs Problem: "Issue 3". Action: Make legal reference (or delete?) _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 373 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 231) [DT-XCU-228] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below__X__ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: Revert the shading from MAN back to XSI for lines 33356, 33359, 33387, 33396 update the change history accordingly look at uses of POSIX.1 and POSIX.2 in rationale and tidy up _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 891 Line: 33539 Section: xargs Problem: Good points from prior .2: follow them. Action: Delete -e and -i. Probably -L too, since I don't see much of a difference with -n. _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 374 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 232) [DT-XCU-229] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept__X__ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 895 Line: 33689 Section: yacc Problem: cc doesn't exist in POSIX. Action: Delete "or cc". _____________________________________________________________________________ COMMENT Enhancement Request Number 375 schweikh@noc.dfn.de BUG in XCU (rdvk# 2) [] Thu Jun 3, 3:50pm +0200 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject_____ OPEN Rationale for rejected or partial changes: _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 900 Line: 33904 Section: yacc Problem: Typo; the comment mentiones nonexisting }% mark Action: Fix typo by replacing }% with the intended %} Reviewers note: This text is the same in POSIX.2 _____________________________________________________________________________ Objection Enhancement Request Number 376 donn@interix.com Bug in XCU (rdvk# 233) [DT-XCU-230] Wed, 14 Jul 1999 13:12:11 -0600 _____________________________________________________________________________ Accept_____ Accept as marked below_____ Duplicate_____ Reject__X__ Rationale for rejected or partial changes: The patent issue has been declared in the PAR. Also this is an XSI extension and not part of the POSIX requirement. _____________________________________________________________________________ Page: 910 Line: 34283 Section: zcat Problem: See uncompress. Action: Delete.