The following reply was made to PR misc/32306; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: fredb@immanent.net (Frederick Bruckman)
To: gnats-bugs@netbsd.org
Cc: 
Subject: Re: misc/32306: please check man nohup(1)
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 17:36:59 -0600 (CST)

 In article <20051215012001.1F6C563B8E4@narn.netbsd.org>,
 	ccatrian@eml.cc writes:
 > SYNOPSIS of nohup(1) says: nohup utility [arg ...]
 > Please check if 'command' is the word instead of 'utility'
 
 SUSv3 uses the word "utility" everywhere, including the man page for
 "nohup".  I can't find a precise definition, but it seems to be a
 generic term for certain shell builtins plus executables.  "command"
 is an even more generic term, which may include compound commands
 enclosed in parenthesis.  "command" may actually be more accurate --
 our "nohup" accepts compound commands -- but the use of the word
 "utility" is historic, and harmless, and I feel there's nothing to be
 gained by swapping one loosely defined term for another.
 
 
 Frederick