lwv27%CAS.bitnet@jade.Berkeley.EDU (08/14/90)
From: lwv27%CAS.bitnet@jade.Berkeley.EDU Does anyone have easily available a list of what tools are being proposed for the POSIX standard? Is there a reason for this list not to contain requirements for certain standard shell tools which are not necessarily a part of the 4.2 BSD/ System V.3 or before universe? For instance, perl is quite popular tool which appears to be very useful for the same types of things for which sed & awk are used. Is perl on the list of standard tools for a POSIX environment? If not, is there a set of criteria being used other than existing practice (while no one is specifically shipping perl that I am aware of, it is running on many, if not most, types of Unix, as well as there being efforts for its presence under a number on non-Unix OSs I believe). -- Larry W. Virden Business: UUCP: osu-cis!chemabs!lwv27 INET: lwv27%cas.BITNET@CUNYVM.CUNY.Edu Personal: 674 Falls Place, Reynoldsburg,OH 43068-1614 Proline: lvirden@pro-tcc.cts.com America Online: lvirden CIS: [75046,606] Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 27
willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) (08/14/90)
From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) In comp.std.unix you write: >From: lwv27%CAS.bitnet@jade.Berkeley.EDU >Does anyone have easily available a list of what tools are being >proposed for the POSIX standard? Here's what's in 1003.2 (Draft 10). This is more than just "proposed", it is very close to an approved standard. (There certainly will be very few changes to this list.) Note that 1003.2 is targeted to shell scripts, NOT to interactive users, so no more (pg, less or whatever), vi, or such. awk basename bc cat cd chgrp chmod cksum cmp comm cp cut date dd diff dirname echo ed env expr false find fold getconf getopts grep head id join kill ln locale localedef logger logname lp ls mailx mkdir mkfifo mv nohup od paste pathchk oax pr printf pwd read rm rmdir sed sh sleep sort stty tail tee test touch tr true tty umask uname uniq wait wc xargs As a separate option: ar make strip As a separate option: c89 lex yacc As a separate option: asa fort77 1003.2a, which is targetted to users, contains the following: alias at batch bg compress crontab csplit ctags df du ex expand fc fg file jobs lint89 man mesg more newgrp nice nm passwd patch ps renice split strings tabs talk tput unalias uncompress unexpand uudecode uuencode vi who write zcat > Is there a reason for this list >not to contain requirements for certain standard shell tools which >are not necessarily a part of the 4.2 BSD/ System V.3 or before >universe? For instance, perl is quite popular tool which appears >to be very useful for the same types of things for which sed & awk are used. I wasn't in this particular group, so I don't know if perl was discussed, and I don't know perl. However, if perl is just a "nicer" way to do things than can also be done with sed and awk, I'm sure that the reaction of the group would be that it is less widely used than sed and awk, and provides no additional functionality. Just being easier to use is not NECESSARILY a telling argument. >Is perl on the list of standard tools for a POSIX environment? If >not, is there a set of criteria being used other than existing practice >(while no one is specifically shipping perl that I am aware of, it >is running on many, if not most, types of Unix, as well as there being >efforts for its presence under a number on non-Unix OSs I believe). Existing practice is a criterium. HOW widely used is also. Also, there should in general not be many ways to do the same thing. David A. Willcox "Just say 'NO' to universal drug testing" Motorola MCD - Urbana UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!udc!willcox 1101 E. University Ave. INET: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com Urbana, IL 61801 FONE: 217-384-8534 Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 28
mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette) (08/15/90)
From: mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette) In article <11180@cs.utexas.edu> you write: |> From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) |> |> Here's what's in 1003.2 (Draft 10). This is more than just |> "proposed", it is very close to an approved standard. (There |> certainly will be very few changes to this list.) Note that 1003.2 is |> targeted to shell scripts, NOT to interactive users, so no more (pg, |> less or whatever), vi, or such. |> |> awk ... |> |> David A. Willcox "Just say 'NO' to universal drug testing" |> Motorola MCD - Urbana UUCP: ...!uiucuxc!udc!willcox |> 1101 E. University Ave. INET: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com |> Urbana, IL 61801 FONE: 217-384-8534 |> |> |> Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 28 David, I didn't see "ld" in your posting Did you forget it or is there really no POSIX spec for "ld". If there is, I would be interested to know if "ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec. Thanks, Matt _____________________________________________________________________________ Matthew R. Wette | Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 198-326 mwette@csi.jpl.nasa.gov | 4800 Oak Grove Dr, Pasadena,CA 91109 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 29
gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) (08/15/90)
From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@smoke.brl.mil> In article <11187@cs.utexas.edu> From: mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette) >I didn't see "ld" in your posting Did you forget it or is there really >no POSIX spec for "ld". If there is, I would be interested to know if >"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec. I sure hope not! It would be really dumb for POSIX to specify facilities that run so much against existing practice that the ability to implement them is in doubt. Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 33
willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) (08/15/90)
From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) I'm not sure how these responses got into the newsgroup. I intended to send my original response directly to the guy who asked for a list of utilities. I didn't think I was posting it to the world. Ah, well. [ See my followup about this. -mod ] In article <11187@cs.utexas.edu> mwette@csi.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Matt Wette) writes: >I didn't see "ld" in your posting Did you forget it or is there really >no POSIX spec for "ld". If there is, I would be interested to know if >"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec. No, there is no "ld" in POSIX.2. You link a bunch of objects using "c89 [-o file] a.o b.o ...". The details of a raw "ld" were considered too implementation-specific for a standard. David Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 37
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (08/15/90)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >I didn't see "ld" in your posting Did you forget it or is there really >no POSIX spec for "ld". If there is, I would be interested to know if >"ld -A" (loading to an executing program) will be in the spec. Almost everyone usually does "ld" by invoking "cc", as the precise set of appropriate "ld" options for a normal program tends to be system-specific. I would guess that 1003.2 simply didn't think it was worth adding "ld" given this. The ability to do "ld -A" (or rather, to do anything useful with the result) is *very* system-specific. Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 34
jsq@usenix.org (John S. Quarterman) (08/17/90)
From: jsq@usenix.org (John S. Quarterman) In article <435@usenix.ORG> From: willcox@urbana.mcd.mot.com (David A Willcox) >I'm not sure how these responses got into the newsgroup. I intended >to send my original response directly to the guy who asked for a list >of utilities. I didn't think I was posting it to the world. Ah, well. A while back, there was a chronic problem with people on the mailing list, std-unix@uunet.uu.net not being able to figure out how to post messages or to send comments to the moderator. There were cases of people replying to the original submittor in attempts to unsubscribe. So I added a Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net line to force replies back to the list submission address. This worked fine for quite a while. While I was gone last week, there was a spate of people reading the newsgroup, comp.std.unix and attempting to respond to the submittor of an article. Their messages got sent to the moderator, because of the Reply-To: line. This has occasionally happened before, but there were many more than usual last week, and the guest moderator wasn't expecting them. So, I'm going to try separating the headers in the mailing list and in the newsgroup. I've already removed the Reply-To: std-unix@uunet.uu.net line from the newsgroup articles, and am adding a hack to put it back in the mailing list as it's gatewayed from the newsgroup. We'll see how that works. I predict somebody will complain.... John S. Quarterman, moderator, comp.std.unix and std-unix@uunet.uu.net Volume-Number: Volume 21, Number 39