That's an interesting point. What systems are out there today that claim
POSIX conformance, or near-conformance, but don't have a conformance
document?
Do we have a definition as to what a conformance document should look like
for the unified standard that this group is producing?
Come to that, do we have a name for this standard yet, other than
1003.1-2001?
/glen
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Josey [mailto:yyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: April 9, 2001 5:26 AM
To: yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: yyyyyyyyyyyyyy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: AI 2001-03-05
(Please followup with this discussion to the off-topic reflector,
to subscribe see http://www.opengroup.org/austin/lists.html )
I think we are already there with the claims of "supporting/complying" to
POSIX --- POSIX compliance is claimed by many vendors today -- usually with
very little understanding in what they are claiming . It thus has little
value anymore.
We need customers to ask to see the POSIX conformance
documentation and demand to see the products on a registered products list.
We need better profiles and documents explaining what to procure and what
to ask for when procuring.
regards
Andrew
On Apr 9, 10:02am in "Re: AI 2001-03-05", Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Vendors will claim POSIX conformance, to comply with the bureaucracy.
> This will be clearly stated, in large letters. In a footnote, in
> much smaller letters, it will say "With some exceptions. Full
> conformance is a future objective."
>
> The more scrupulous vendors will document their breaches of the
> standard, but others won't. If necessary, they will implement two
> modes - one of which is more strictly conforming, and the other of
> which is supported, realistic and useful.
>
|