Coreutils POSIX changes not documented in release notes
Paul W. Frields
stickster at gmail.com
Thu Mar 9 03:04:32 UTC 2006
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
> `POSIXLY_CORRECT'.
>
> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 191 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/docs/attachments/20060308/a7410794/attachment.bin
More information about the docs
mailing list