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
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:32:19 -0400
Message-Id: <200010132132.RAA22620@envy.delorie.com>
From: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
To: dufault AT hda DOT com
CC: cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
In-reply-to: <200010132105.RAA50753@hda.hda.com> (message from Peter Dufault
	on Fri, 13 Oct 2000 17:05:25 -0400 (EDT))
Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility
References:  <200010132105 DOT RAA50753 AT hda DOT hda DOT com>


> Paragraph 2 talks about Linux as a compatiblity reference.  Is this
> a combination specification and reference platform?

It implies the specifications that the reference platform uses.  In
the case of Linux, POSIX is the spec they follow.

> You should go further: "Red Hat Linux as the reference platform".

I wanted to avoid nepotism ;-)

I'm OK if people agree that "Red Hat Linux" is suitable for "Red Hat
Cygwin" to be modelled after.

> 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.

Since Linux follows POSIX, you can still do this.  However, POSIX only
covers a small portion of what Linux provides.

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

Yes, of course we'll skip *that* part.  If you want linux, buy linux.

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