* Stuart Anderson said: > On Fri, 22 Oct 1999, Marek Habersack wrote: > > > I don't see any reason to follow any other standard right now. POSIX is > > everywhere in GNU, and Debian *is* GNU. Also, POSIX - as imperfect as it > > might be in some places - is a well established standard, and a damned good > > one, IMHO. > > If we limit ourselves to POSIX only, then either > > 1) the LSB will not contain enough stuff to be able to > do anything useful, or > 2) We will never finish the LSB because we have 100's of pages of > specifications that need writing to cover the things not in POSIX. Note that I said "right now" above. If LSB developes into something really functional and useful, then there's no reason not to follow it. It's just not ready yet. > We are using SUS as the base because it provides a large chunck of the pages > mentioned in #2. But, as we can see, it has some err... not fully thought over points... > As has been stated before. We will specifiy differences against SUS where it > makes sense. This seems to be one of those cases. A couple of lines > documenting the difference is still easier to write than writing a complete > spec for a shell. Why couldn't SuS fill out just the gaps that aren't in POSIX? Then the 100's of pages you mention would be filled. SuS could just be used where POSIX doesn't get. marek
Attachment:
pgp9SJyCb9S9u.pgp
Description: PGP signature