Irek Szczesniak <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 10:08 PM, Joerg Schilling
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Lionel Cons <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> > I am not interested in these people, as I live in the present and as I
> >> > don't
> >> > like false claims.
> >> >
> >> > Given the fact that I added the command line history editor I wrote
> >> > 1982..1984
> >> > for my "bsh" to the Bourne Shell in December 2006, it would not even be
> >> > promotional if I did add a related hint to the wiki article as we now
> >> > have 2012.
> >>
> >> *sigh*
> >> You are diverting to other topics. See below.
> >
> > It seems that you did not follow the discussion. I was just replying to a
> > false
> > claim from Irek Szczesniak.
>
> Joerg, this was not a false claim. The POSIX and SUS test suites are
> very important and there is little to do if you do not pass it. My
I originally planned not to reply to this thread again, as asked by Sriram
Narayanan, but you again send incorrect claims that confuse people if not
corrected, so here is my hopefully last reply to this topic:
As mentioned before, you don't seem to understand POSIX, so let me try again to
help you:
- The Bourne Shell does not need to be POSIX compliant, so for the Bourne
Shell, the POSIX test suite is not important.
- POSIX intentionally does not require that /bin/sh is a POSIX shell.
- A POSIX shell is started by calling:
PATH=`getconf PATH`
sh
- The hacked ksh88 in /usr/xpg4/bin/sh is closer to the POSIX standard
than ksh93. Unfortunately, /usr/xpg4/bin/sh is not legally available in
source but the binary is redistributable. So as long as noone
introduces a new ISA, OpenSolaris distros can use that binary. With the
hope that ksh93 will cloaser approach POSIX in the future, ksh93 may be
discussed again soon.
- A failed POSIX compliance test verifies a POSIX non-compliance.
A passed POSIX compliance test does not verify POSIX compliance.
- The output from "times" is not the only non-compliance in ksh93. I see
deviations from time to time while doing tests in order to decide on
implementation details in the Bourne Shell or my "bsh", but I don't
write
them down. This may however change in case the group of people that
promotes ksh93 for OpenSolaris will become more friendly.
> mistake, by accidental omission, was to say that the written standard
> and the standard interpretations done by Open Group and other standard
> bodies have more importance (and precedence, before anything else).
In case you don't know, I am actively working in the POSIX standard committee,
so I am one of the persons that decide on how to interpret the standard.
...
....offensive content censored....
...
.... and I am sorry to see that you again send a very offensive mail. Please
work on your discussion style.
And finally: in case you are not interested in writing things that a wider
audience is interesded in, you should better not reply to this thread in this
list again.
Jörg
--
EMail:[email protected] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[email protected] (uni)
[email protected] (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
belenix-discuss mailing list
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/belenix-discuss
http://groups.google.com/group/belenix-discuss
