On Apr 9, 8:59am in "RE: AI 2001-03-05", Seeds, Glen wrote:
> 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?
The most immediate one that springs to mind (since I saw it today) is Mac OS X
(http://www.apple.com/macosx/tour/darwin.html) which claims
to be "POSIX-compliant" . I looked at the register and could
not see it there. I do not know if Mac OS X has a conformance
document.
Other claims I see are often in the wrong area, such as vendors having
a product certified for FIPS 151-2 and then claiming conformance
to POSIX.1b or POSIX.1c etc.
>
> Do we have a definition as to what a conformance document should look like
> for the unified standard that this group is producing?
Yes, the documentation requirements are section 2 of the XBD.
>
> Come to that, do we have a name for this standard yet, other than
> 1003.1-2001?
>
Yes , its called POSIX.1. [POSIX.1 is technically identical to the
The Open Group, Base Specifications, Issue 6]
regards
Andrew
|