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/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-docs-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-docs-list
