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: <200010132205.SAA50958@hda.hda.com>
Subject: Re: RFC: linux compatibility
In-Reply-To: <200010132132.RAA22620@envy.delorie.com> from DJ Delorie at "Oct
 13, 2000 05:32:19 pm"
To: DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com>
Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 18:05:43 -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

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

I'm not sure, there are more POSIX specs than you can shake
a stick at, especially if you include draft specs.  In
the absence of any formal specification I have to
which de-facto standard is Linux following, and, for Cygwin,
does it makes more sense to follow (gulp) an MS established
de-facto standard?

You can be quite specific about the reference platform and it should
be one you have some influence on, especially since when you decide
the platform is screwed up you'll be more likely to get them to
fix it.  Therefore, the reference platform is easy: Red Hat Linux.

For when you wish to select a given facility or capability just
saying whatever "Red Hat Linux" has is the one you will choose is
too loose for me.

If you mean that when choosing between competing specifications
you'll follow the specification decided upon in Linux (or Red Hat
Linux, this is where you can be squirmy and uncomfortable but I
say ignore it Red Hat is the place you'll have the most input on
which specifications to follow) - OK, that makes sense.

> > 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.

To me it sounded too much like that. Some of the uninformed (not on
this list, of course) reading about Linux compatibility will
think "cool, now my drivers will port to NT!". 

I'm touchy, I'm tired of finding reasonable code bracketed
by "#ifdef LINUXFOO" test macros selecting features that have been
around for 25 years.

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