On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 10:06:47AM +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > > The only RC requirements we have for POSIX conformance are indirectly > > through requirements for LSB/FHS conformance, or because that's what > > maintainers expect of their own packages. > > Indeed. > > Conforming to POSIX _perfectly_ is hard any time for various OSes and > systems. For example look at the recent NPTL updates. NPTL fixes > various pthread concerns, but it needs a long history (from 1997 or > so) to modify both kernel and glibc. > > Moreover, if you read specs deeply, then you may find even > specification error. And there are a lot of "shall" "may" words, and > in that case we don't need to conform to such item if we have reasons. > > Be careful that exactly matching to the specification blindly misleads > the meaning or the purpose of specifications and standards.
Change "POSIX" to "LSB" and that makes the point better than I care to. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -><- |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
