Date: Tue, 9 Jul 2002 16:17:05 +0200 (CEST) From: Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> To: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.org Cc: Oliver Fromme <olli@secnetix.de> Subject: bin/40381: xargs(1) is wrong about standards compliance Message-ID: <200207091417.g69EH5b54016@lurza.secnetix.de>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>Number: 40381 >Category: bin >Synopsis: xargs(1) is wrong about standards compliance >Confidential: no >Severity: non-critical >Priority: low >Responsible: freebsd-bugs >State: open >Quarter: >Keywords: >Date-Required: >Class: doc-bug >Submitter-Id: current-users >Arrival-Date: Tue Jul 09 07:20:02 PDT 2002 >Closed-Date: >Last-Modified: >Originator: Oliver Fromme >Release: FreeBSD 4.6-RELEASE i386 >Organization: secnetix GmbH & Co. KG http://www.secnetix.de/ >Environment: FreeBSD 4.6-RELEASE >Description: In the "STANDARDS" section, the manpage xargs(1) says: "The xargs utility is expected to be IEEE Std 1003.2 (`POSIX.2'') compliant." However, our xargs is not compliant, because the -E and -p options are missing (at least), which are required by POSIX.1 in IEEE 1003.1-2001 (which is now identical to the Open Group Base Specs 6, which is a subset of SUSv3). By the way, POSIX.2 is now part of POSIX.1. Furthermore, it doesn't make sense to mention the standard without also giving its version (e.g. -2001). >How-To-Repeat: man xargs && scroll down >Fix: I'd suggest to simply remove that sentence from the manpage. It is completely misleading, at best. >Release-Note: >Audit-Trail: >Unformatted: To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200207091417.g69EH5b54016>