IEEE Standards Interpretations for IEEE Std 1003.2™-1992 IEEE Standard for Information Technology--Portable Operating System Interfaces (POSIX®)--Part 2: Shell and Utilities
Copyright © 1996 by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. 3 Park Avenue New York, New York 10016-5997 USA All Rights Reserved.
Interpretations are issued to explain and clarify the intent of a standard and do not constitute an alteration to the original standard. In addition, interpretations are not intended to supply consulting information. Permission is hereby granted to download and print one copy of this document. Individuals seeking permission to reproduce and/or distribute this document in its entirety or portions of this document must contact the IEEE Standards Department for the appropriate license. Use of the information contained in this document is at your own risk.
IEEE Standards Department, Copyrights and Permissions, 445 Hoes Lane, Piscataway, New Jersey 08855-1331, USA
Interpretation Request #92
Topic: ar Relevant Clauses: 184.108.40.206
It is unclear what the exact behaviour is when a file is added to an archive and only the -r option is specified in the ar utility. First, subclause 6.1.3, lines 55-57, page 662 states: -v Give verbose output. When used with the option characters -d, -r, or -x, write a detailed file-by-file description of the archive creation and maintenance activity, as described in 220.127.116.11. This seems to imply that when using the -x, -d and -r options, that the verbose output is displayed only when -v is also specified. This implication seems to be true since all the descriptions in subclause 18.104.22.168 specify the use the "-v" option except for one, on line 118, which states: If file is being added to the archive with the -r option, the standare output format shall be ... It seems odd that line 118 should be the only description in all of subclause 22.214.171.124 that does not specify the -v option. Its unclear if the wording on line 114, which does specify the -v option, should be continued to be used on line 118. Further, except for line 118, subclause 126.96.36.199 has consistently described historical behaviour. I would like an interpretation stating that the format specified on line 120 is only required when -r and -v are both specified.
The standard is unclear on this issue, and no conformance distinction can be made between alternative implementations based on this. This is being referred to the sponsor.
Rationale for Interpretation