X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; q=dns; s=default; b=qZ8ACfm
	kfRKaY+JY/VDmi3NHZWdqiO/Nt9ckMyvfoC3uM5++Wq8E5RGI8vqmjFkprW59uKL
	B5UERdFXVutPM0tPJAq+XM5F7JdYEsm6UfAyu8wsAEjLMkPYy9tayHcGTIyKoprS
	FYM+n/EMvVcNfcRf6Tc3q1zR8QWeshN6aUwo=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:content-type; s=default; bh=pJ9fv7Z4UHrUv
	qcWIAi3oz95cBc=; b=XJN3A/mY6FSZyjCeleHXNJGoXeF7jtBy2XVXsd2vdCYL5
	HKaGgIacCSS1KEXn2amgNzylcSceQ4FxN2EFD55ZRHXLriRUrVsQ2cykqAMqtSfQ
	R9/3fDatIf7z0cOE0JdPkDmfooA7tGa8yXv70WOxuNZMiUplnSEQYdQLgzpJW4=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=fruit, aka, meet
X-HELO:	mail-lf0-f47.google.com
X-Google-DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=3HVorm+9y3w5nxzo/mTQlOLqUT8//rwZ3zV36nkOivE=; b=bj+rLWortHBLQktBBvHeolNNQifWWfH7Brx6IO0c4KT3GHGjSkPYp1Oo0yi8ablCys cDwc7JzhW9tFpEkg4chdoRTnmUoBb0cOXZZyqc2P2TJ81P4r+I2NRE2L9yxx8oPNPr6V fdvf3MPlbqQPLPD8NW193xY1flUM/Z8LC9wmkMaNc5B3b0g5I6VqU4E6tfRfr0TlxnB0 guExbQhv0joG+YCRaiP6aDA38F2nBZvS3iB6uB37ZYlbPyq1OAjLld1n5IENoP3NokHP C4pnxF+p60kApwMapkK7fWM5ONl7UTSny7kuxWmmlQ2YiogBNTbAj9pBKTdBL68doMAa Lttg==
X-Gm-Message-State:	AKGB3mLqMq0DkfP6Gbm5CgZV+aY364WCY4LGvUiIuBkitJLteuKsIvXJ UcB7Z75wweZY2Bj2DV1AaBlVPEFShLedWdRptcmJAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source:	ACJfBotowvzuPaG0ZQ23weHdyMQR0d1ILYhf5K6Bo9cy3PaQUg8JYsHAprys9DnKisn2E/zcEyb7RGQTiUgQr8RHBI8=
X-Received:	by 10.46.4.13 with SMTP id 13mr22800856lje.82.1514763780924; Sun, 31 Dec 2017 15:43:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<5a4970b5.ea129d0a.c1394.8b37@mx.google.com>
References:	<CANnLRdj19K15+do5bqyY1-MCB7O3qS+By58gaAUTgtvE=C2JRA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com> <5a4970b5 DOT ea129d0a DOT c1394 DOT 8b37 AT mx DOT google DOT com>
From:	Stephen John Smoogen <smooge AT gmail DOT com>
Date:	Sun, 31 Dec 2017 18:43:00 -0500
Message-ID:	<CANnLRdjLkgpsw6ogipAVaAsjKm+fRruBFvizK-sgSNiXYWrijg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject:	Re: flex package POSIX violation
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
X-IsSubscribed:	yes

On 31 December 2017 at 18:20, Steven Penny <svnpenn AT gmail DOT com> wrote:
> On Sun, 31 Dec 2017 17:47:11, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> How POSIX compliant is Cygwin supposed to be? I don't think many of
>> the tools are 100% POSIX compliant but are good enough so does making
>> the symlink between flex and lex make it more compliant or less so
>> because the tool doesn't meet 100% compliance?
>
>
> are these some questions to really want to have asked?
>
> POSIX standard demands a "lex" utility - so providing a "lex -> flex"
> symlink
> makes the Cygwin package more POSIX compliant - im sorry but i cant see how
> you
> couldnt understand why that would be the case. and while yes 100% compliance
> is
> certainly an asymptote, that doesnt mean we shouldnt even try - especially
> when
> it is a simple fix, as in this case.
>

I should have been clearer. I will try to do so now.

Well it depends on the standard and the level of compliance that each
standard puts to things. Some standards can consider you less
compliant because they consider a tool which does not meat the rest of
its demands as cheating. Other standards do a scaled score system
where your minimal compliance (aka 1 point out of N) is that a tool
exists. Having read some of the POSIX threads on bash not being sh
enough for POSIX compliance.. I don't know where flex not being 100%
compliant makes things better or worse.

Which is why I wanted to see where this was going. Are these fixes
just looking for low hanging fruit to be POSIX compliant, or are these
needing larger amounts of resources to be 'compliant'? If the
flex->lex link fails some sort of POSIX test, are people going to need
Cygwin porters to fix those? Also is there an easy line for "this is
compliant enough?"


> also, per my post [1] you quoted, and yaakov post [2], most major distros
> are
> doing this already.
>
> [1] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00296.html
> [2] http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2017-12/msg00298.html
>
>
>
> --
> Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
> FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
> Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -