Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!umn.edu!newsdist.tc.umn.edu!uum1!newsserver!mark From: mark@jupiter.aggregate.com (Mark P. Gooderum, Software Engineer) Subject: Re: I hope this won't ignite a major flame Sender: usenet@newsserver.aggregate.com (Usenet News Administrative Account) Message-ID: <MARK.94Jul22105004@jupiter.aggregate.com> In-Reply-To: chrisb@tansu.com.au's message of 22 Jul 1994 01:09:22 GMT Date: Fri, 22 Jul 1994 15:50:04 GMT References: <mrg.774688509@dynamo> <30n682$8kc@picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> Nntp-Posting-Host: jupiter.aggregate.com Organization: Aggregate Computing, Inc. Lines: 22 > 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? Don't confuse POSIX.1 with POSIX.2 and POSIX.XXXX^NNNN ;-). The BSD's are POSIX.1 compliant. POSIX.2 compliance is a much bigger issue. No, ash isn't POSIX.2 compliant, but bash isn't either (although it's very, very close). You can also build bash on XXXBSD without a problem (I untarred and typed make, works for me). There is much more to POSIX.2 than just the shell. There are all the rest of the command line utils. I don't know that they'll ever be 100% POSIX.2 compliance in the near future, esp. since a few of the POSIX.2 "standards" have some interesting problems/features/ambiguities. -- Mark Gooderum mark@good.com