*BSD News Article 33147


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!uum1!newsserver!mark
From: mark@jupiter.aggregate.com (Mark P. Gooderum, Software Engineer)
Subject: Re: I hope this won't ignite a major flame
Sender: usenet@newsserver.aggregate.com (Usenet News Administrative Account)
Message-ID: <MARK.94Jul22105004@jupiter.aggregate.com>
In-Reply-To: chrisb@tansu.com.au's message of 22 Jul 1994 01:09:22 GMT
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 15:50:04 GMT
References: <mrg.774688509@dynamo> <30n682$8kc@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>
Nntp-Posting-Host: jupiter.aggregate.com
Organization: Aggregate Computing, Inc.
Lines: 22

> to me, you're hinting that netbsd and freebsd are not posix
> compliant, which is plain wrong.
> 

> Is this actually true that bsd is posix compliant? For example, Is the bsd's sh 
> shell posix compliant? Are the various utilities?

Don't confuse POSIX.1 with POSIX.2 and POSIX.XXXX^NNNN ;-).
The BSD's are POSIX.1 compliant.  POSIX.2 compliance is a much bigger
issue.  No, ash isn't POSIX.2 compliant, but bash isn't either (although
it's very, very close).  You can also build bash on XXXBSD without a 
problem (I untarred and typed make, works for me).

There is much more to POSIX.2 than just the shell.  There are all the rest
of the command line utils.  I don't know that they'll ever be 100% POSIX.2
compliance in the near future, esp. since a few of the POSIX.2 "standards"
have some interesting problems/features/ambiguities.
--
Mark Gooderum
mark@good.com