Hi Seth,

On Sun, Dec 21, 2025 at 08:17:07AM +0000, Seth McDonald wrote:

On Sunday, 21 December 2025 at 03:44, Alejandro Colomar [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Sat, Dec 20, 2025 at 04:17:44PM +0000, Seth McDonald wrote:

[...]

quoted

quoted

If the reason is the latter, then I'd be happy to help here. I have
access to POSIX.1-1988, POSIX.1-1990, and POSIX.1-1996, as well as SUS
(1994) and SUSv2 (1997). So I can check each function and update their
man page's history section with an earlier POSIX (or SUS) version if
applicable. Though only if that's desirable for the man pages, of
course; let me know if so.

quoted

Yup! Thanks a lot! That would be helpful. :)

Cool! So just to ensure that I conform to the man pages' preferences/
standards, I want to ask a few things about documenting POSIX and SUS.

POSIX and SUS converged to the same document in POSIX.1-2001/SUSv3. So
if, for example, a function was first introduced in SUSv2 and then first
appeared in a POSIX standard in POSIX.1-2001, should its history section
include SUSv2, POSIX.1-2001, or both?

Both.

And for any similar questions, when in doubt, more information is
better.

Suppose instead a function was first introduced in SUSv2, included in
POSIX.1-2001 as an XSI extension, then in POSIX.1-2008 it was moved to
Base. Should its history section include POSIX.1-2001 or POSIX.1-2008 as
its first POSIX appearance (since XSI is SUS)?

I think you could do this:

SUSv2.
POSIX.1-2001 (XSI).
POSIX.1-2008.

Suppose a function appeared in POSIX.1-1988, but its function signature
then was different (e.g., returning 'int' instead of 'ssize_t', or
taking 'char*' instead of 'const char*'). And it only got its current
signature in POSIX.1-1990. Should its history section include
POSIX.1-1988 or POSIX.1-1990?

I'd include both, and then include a paragraph clarifying that in
certain standards it had a different prototype (and show the prototype).


Have a lovely day!
Alex

-- 
<https://www.alejandro-colomar.es>