Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!darkstar.UCSC.EDU!news.hal.COM!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jconklin From: jconklin@netcom.com (J.T. Conklin) Subject: Re: I hope this won't ignite a major flame Message-ID: <jconklinCtCpKt.AB3@netcom.com> Organization: Winning Strategies, Inc. References: <mrg.774688509@dynamo> <30n682$8kc@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 16:53:17 GMT Lines: 29 In article <30n682$8kc@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb@tansu.com.au> wrote: >In article 774688509@dynamo, mrg@mame.mu.OZ.AU (matthew green) writes: >> byron@cc.gatech.edu (Byron A Jeff) writes: >> >Well Linux is Posix compliant which means it has features of >> >both SV and BSD but favors SV. >> >> 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? The upcoming NetBSD release is "very close" to being POSIX.1 compliant. I wouldn't feel comfortable calling any of the OS's being discussed in this thread (NetBSD, FreeBSD, or Linux) compliant if they have not passed all the test suite assertions and/or are distributed without a PCD (POSIX Conformance Document). That being said, I've been working on a regression test based on the POSIX.1 assertions, and know of only few minor problems. Even though the POSIX.2 test assertions have not been completed, I know that NetBSD has a bit a work to go before we'll be compliant. On the other hand, the shell and many of the utilities are being updated to follow the spec. A good number of them probably compliant, others need quite a bit more work. The shell is somewhere in the middle. --jtc