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=
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

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