>> >> I think the idea of your patch is good, but I prefer to use a word >> >> other than "deprecated". The problem is that "deprecated" implies a >> >> standards body or a vendor made a formal statement about this. It's >> >> true that LSB 2.1 says that wait3() is deprecated >> >> (http://refspecs.linuxbase.org/LSB_2.1.0/LSB-generic/LSB-generic/baselib-wait3-3.html), >> >> but wait4() is currently still part of LSB. So, I applied a slightly >> >> >> >> modified version of your test: >> >> >> >> [[ >> >> These functions are nonstandard; use >> >> >> >> .BR waitpid (2) >> >> or >> >> .BR waitid (2) >> >> in new programs. >> >> ]] >> >> >> >> Seem okay? >> > >> > the wait3() function is not "nonstandard, since as the URL you gave >> > correctly states it is part of SuSv2 (and also of SuSv1). >> >> Yep, but marked LEGACY in SUSv2, and removed altogether in SUSv3. So, >> not part of contemporary standard. (BTW, I did also add text under >> CONFORMING TO to note those details.) So, I think I'll leave the text >> as I gave already, unless you have a better alternative to propose. > > My problem is with the word "nonstandard" for wait3(), that was > specified in older standards. > > What about "obsolete" instead? Okay -- done! Cheers, Michael -- Michael Kerrisk Linux man-pages maintainer; http://www.kernel.org/doc/man-pages/ Author of "The Linux Programming Interface"; http://man7.org/tlpi/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-man" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
