Re: touch(1) documentation improvement suggestions

[Paul Eggert]

> From: Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
> Date: 17 Mar 2001 10:52:34 +0100
> 
> I was a little reluctant to add it there, since that usage is obsolescent --
> but support for that form is not going away....

Actually, the latest POSIX draft no longer allows an implementation to
support that obsolescent form, which means that support for that usage
must be removed once POSIX 1003.1-200x becomes official, if we want to
stay POSIX-compliant.

Here's a proposed patch to document this compatibility problem.

2001-03-17  Paul Eggert  <address@hidden>

        * doc/fileutils.texi: Warn that touch DATE FILE will be withdrawn.

===================================================================
RCS file: doc/fileutils.texi,v
retrieving revision 4.0.39.3
retrieving revision 4.0.39.5
diff -pu -r4.0.39.3 -r4.0.39.5
--- doc/fileutils.texi  2001/02/21 08:55:13     4.0.39.3
+++ doc/fileutils.texi  2001/03/17 20:15:58     4.0.39.5
@@ -2960,7 +2960,9 @@ If the first @var{file} would be a valid
 option and no timestamp is given with any of the @samp{-d}, @samp{-r},
 or @samp{-t} options and the @samp{--} argument is not given, that
 argument is interpreted as the time for the other files instead of
-as a file name.
+as a file name.  Warning: this usage is obsolescent, and future versions
+of @sc{posix} will require that support for it be withdrawn.  Use
address@hidden instead.
 
 @cindex empty files, creating
 Any @var{file} that does not exist is created empty.