Joerg Schilling writes: > James Carlson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Our official "binary compatibility guarantee" agreement doesn't cover > > scripts, mostly because there's no tool that could plausibly check > > them for conformance to documented interfaces. > > Do you mean checking the scripts for what they use or the shell for what > it supports?
The former; checking to see that a given script uses only what is documented. The previous poster was confusing the Sun "application binary guarantee" with our interface stability levels. > I thought that there is a validation suite for SVID3 and fpr POSIX, is that > not sufficient? There is such a suite. It has nothing to do with customer-written scripts. > Well, if /usr/bin/pax was checked against POSIX in autumn 2004, then these > scripts seem to be weak. I did file a longer bug list regarding POSIX > compliance. I'm not really familiar with what the pax tests do. I also don't think it matters for this discussion, which is about what sorts of changes are allowable in a given type of release, and not about POSIX conformance (or the lack of it). -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sun Microsystems / 1 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677 _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list [email protected]
