Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:36:43 -0700 From: Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: scanf requirements not met? On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:17:51 -0500 Rob Landley <rob@...dley.net> wrote: > Stomping the existing web copy of posix, without an obvious changelog, > really doesn't fill me with happy thoughts. > > I'm glad I downloed it before they did that. I'm not quite to the point > of changing my links to point to the archive.org copy, but I do NOT > understand why a 5 year gap does not merit susv7. (Posix 2008 was not > posix 2001, so why is posix 2013 considered still posix 2008?) This isn't POSIX 2013, which is supposed to go to the committee shortly. It is the "errata" from POSIX 2008. Now, I wonder if they'd be willing to allow distribution and provide man pages like they did for POSIX 2001/2004... Of course, it's annoying that they don't really explain what those errata are, and also that the numbers seem to have no connection to each other: SUSv4, _XOPEN_SOURCE=700, _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L (IIRC). ..I'm tempted to do a diff on the two... -- Isaac Dunham <idunham@...abit.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.