On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:31:25AM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:51:02PM +0100, Kevin Chadwick wrote: > > > And that's a Linux problem where some BSDs put lots of effort into > > > compliance only to have the standard changed to suit linux due to > > > pressure. > > > > Which standard, POSIX? > > http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/57589-upstream-vendors-can-harm-small-projects-openbsd-dev/57589-upstream-vendors-can-harm-small-projects-openbsd-dev?start=1
I've read that page and I can't see an example of POSIX being changed to suit Linux. I see mention of strlcpy, which Linux has not adopted, but is not POSIX; I see a claim that the next version of POSIX would be riddled with GNU, but that hasn't happened. What did I miss? > That's a very narrow view of what may be delivered. Please widen my horizons, then. I typed up that scenario to try and understand what you are talking about. I still don't understand. > > I'd like to see an answer to the question another poster put to you > > regarding this: which part of the POSIX specification specifically > > relates to init systems? > > That's a loaded disengenuous question. Why? You said "an init which also differes between systems but can be POSIC compliant". I just want to know what that means. How does POSIX relate to init systems? > A system running systemd can not be POSIX compliant ever. Why not? > How can it not be relevant as pid1, if programs come to depend on > systemd then you would have to fork more and more code and not > necessarily just for embedded systems wanting leaner code but possibly > for POSIX compliance. A program depending on systemd? How many programs need to depend on any specific init implementation? A very small number surely. Why can't a program requiring POSIX work on a systemd system? Why can't a system running systemd be POSIX compliant? Or is that not what you are saying? > I was pointing out that you were twisting things. launchd being POSIX > compliant has no bearing on the discussion. Your point was pointless. I didn't bring up launchd… I'm sorry if you think I'm twisting things because that is not my intention (and I'm in the dark as to what I am twisting…) > > If you were a faithful follower of Kernighan UNIX philosophy, you > > wouldn't touch those nasty BSDs with a bargepole. > > Rubbish Why? > The book talks about the east and west as you call them Great > not as one being better Also great: they both have their merits, and Linux is if anything a mongrel of philosophies. > but both being so depending on the task at hand because the > world isn't black and white. Indeed: yet your world view leaves no room for systemd? > What I was saying was that systemd goes against some of the good principles > set forward in that book. No doubt: not least the idea of small, discrete programs each doing one job. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130422185142.GA22675@debian
