On Mon, 29 Jul 2019 01:12:44 +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> My feeling is csh(1) is the odd one out here. The amount of
> cross references from csh(1) to section 2 looks excessive.
Agreed. I noticed this but it wasn't within the scope of the diff
I was writing :-)
> For the umask builtin comman
On Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 01:12:44AM +0200, Ingo Schwarze wrote:
> Hi Philip,
>
> Philip Guenther wrote on Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 07:21:48PM -0900:
>
> > Hmm: sh(1) and ksh(1) have *nothing* from sections 2 or 3 in their SEE
> > ALSO. That doesn't seem like a wrong choice,
>
> Indeed. Jason genera
Hi Philip,
Philip Guenther wrote on Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 07:21:48PM -0900:
> Hmm: sh(1) and ksh(1) have *nothing* from sections 2 or 3 in their SEE
> ALSO. That doesn't seem like a wrong choice,
Indeed. Jason generally discourages linking from section 1 to
sections 2 and 3, arguing that neithe
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:04 PM Todd C. Miller wrote:
> We should only cross-reference the obsolete sigvec(3) function from
> the signal compat manuals and sigaction(2).
>
> This also syncs the SEE ALSO section in ualarm(3) match that of
> alarm(3).
>
ok guenther@
We could reference signal(3)
We should only cross-reference the obsolete sigvec(3) function from
the signal compat manuals and sigaction(2).
This also syncs the SEE ALSO section in ualarm(3) match that of
alarm(3).
We could reference signal(3) in csh instead of sigaction(2) if
that's what people prefer.
- todd
Index: lib/
