[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Coreutils POSIX changes not documented in release notes

On Wed, 2006-03-08 at 14:07 -0500, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> Just discovered this.
> IMHO, this massive breakage needs to be documented (in allcaps) in the
> FC5 Release notes:
> % info coreutils Standards
>    2.9 Standards conformance
>    =========================
>    In a few cases, the GNU utilities' default behavior is incompatible
>    with the POSIX standard.  To suppress these incompatibilities, define
>    the `POSIXLY_CORRECT' environment variable.  Unless you are checking
>    for POSIX conformance, you probably do not need to define
>       Newer versions of POSIX are occasionally incompatible with older
>    versions.  For example, older versions of POSIX required the command
>    `sort +1' to sort based on the second and succeeding fields in each
>    input line, but starting with POSIX 1003.1-2001 the same command is
>    required to sort the file named `+1', and you must instead use the
>    command `sort -k 2' to get the field-based sort.
>       The GNU utilities normally conform to the version of POSIX that is
>    standard for your system.  To cause them to conform to a different
>    version of POSIX, define the `_POSIX2_VERSION' environment variable to
>    a value of the form YYYYMM specifying the year and month the standard
>    was adopted.  Two values are currently supported for `_POSIX2_VERSION':
>    `199209' stands for POSIX 1003.2-1992, and `200112' stands for POSIX
>    1003.1-2001.  For example, if you have a newer system but are running
>    software that assumes an older version of POSIX and uses `sort +1' or
>    `tail +10', you can work around any compatibility problems by setting
>    `_POSIX2_VERSION=199209' in your environment.
> I don't see anything about it here:
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats
> I was all excited about upgrading some servers to FC5, and this stops
> that upgrade cold until every one of hundreds of locally written scripts,
> some two decades old, are audited and "fixed."
> Ugh, sometimes POSIX is just ridiculous.

I don't see how this is release notes worthy at all.  My FC3 box has the
exact same text in its coreutils.  Is there anyone running something
older who could check theirs?

Paul W. Frields, RHCE                          http://paul.frields.org/
  gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233  5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
 Fedora Documentation Project: http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/docs/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]