Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
From: Peter Dufault <dufault AT hda DOT com>
Message-Id: <200010132105.RAA50753@hda.hda.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility
In-Reply-To: <200010131925.PAA21459@envy.delorie.com> from DJ Delorie at "Oct
 13, 2000 03:25:02 pm"
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:05:25 -0400 (EDT)
CC: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL61 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> 
> One of the ongoing discussions about cygwin is which "unix" to be
> compatible with.  There are a number of specifications (ansi, posix,
> x/open etc) and reference platforms (solaris, linux, etc) to choose
> from.
> 
> Given that Cygnus (official sponsors of Cygwin) has recently been
> acquired by Red Hat (leading Linux company), I would like to propose
> that the target compatibility reference be Linux.  Note I didn't say
> "Red Hat Linux" although that's the only Linux *I* have ;-)
> 
> Being compatible with Linux has a number of options:
> 
> * We can avoid lengthy discussions about what to be compatible with.
> 
> * Applications that run on Linux can more easily be ported to Cygwin.
> 
> * The Red Hat Cygwin group is much more likely to get official support :)
> 
> This, of course, doesn't mean we're giving up any of the
> cygwin-specific stuff (mount tables, crlf handling, etc).  A specific
> example of something that would change is the handling of the
> time/timezone API, which is currently SYSV-style whereas Linux is
> BSD-style.

I'm not sure what you mean.  Paragraph 1 starts out with identifying
two components, namely, a specification and a reference platform.
Paragraph 2 talks about Linux as a compatiblity reference.  Is this
a combination specification and reference platform?

I have no problem with "Posix as specification and Linux as reference
platform".  You should go further: "Red Hat Linux as the reference
platform".  But I want a spec to be a spec - you can go out and
buy (unfortunately, yes you must buy) the Posix specs and read the
commentary in the back section and get feedback about why an issue
was settled between disparate groups in a given manner.

I'm against something that expects sprinklings of "#include
<linux/foo.h>".

Peter

--
Peter Dufault (dufault AT hda DOT com)   Realtime development, Machine control,
HD Associates, Inc.               Fail-Safe systems, Agency approval

--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com