🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: david@mks.com (David Rowley)

In article <159qf1INNeu8@ftp.UU.NET> hoogerwerf_glenn@tandem.com (Glenn Hoogerwerf) writes:
>Submitted-by: glenn@rainier.berkeley.edu (Glenn Hoogerwerf)
>
>    After reviewing the XPG4 snapshot, I am left with the following
>question.  If a utility is marked as TO BE WITHDRAWN in XPG4, does
>this open the utility up as being waiverable.  In other words, does
>one have to implement pax, tar, and cpio, instead of just pax.  
>Another example is cc and c89.  It seems unreasonable that one 
>would have to implement a dead interface, such as cc, if it is going
>away in the next release.  I realize that many of the interfaces
>might consist of shells that turn around and call the POSIX.2 
>interface, but in the case of lint or dis, life is not that simple.

	Actually, X/Open is being extremely flexible about XPG4 Branding,
since they are eager to get people branded.  You can brand anything as
XPG4 Command and Utilities conforming as long as you document what is not
supported.  The 'TO BE WITHDRAWN' commands are likely candidates to not
be supported in a vendor's implementation.  The question of whether this
meets market expectations, is of course, another matter. 

David.
-- 
David Rowley
Mortice Kern Systems Inc.
35 King Street North, Waterloo, ON, Canada N2J 2W9
519/884-2251, FAX 519/884-8861, david@mks.com

Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 77

Submitted-by: decot@cup.hp.com (Dave Decot)

Yes, you have to implement it, if you claim XPG4 conformance with XCU4
commands.  Note that you can claim XPG4 conformance with XPG3 commands,
or anything in between, as long as you describe the differences between
yours and either XCU4 or XPG3 Volume 1.  Get the branding information
(including the XPG4 Conformance Questionnaires) from X/Open for more details.

> Another example is cc and c89.  It seems unreasonable that one 
> would have to implement a dead interface, such as cc, if it is going
> away in the next release.  I realize that many of the interfaces
> might consist of shells that turn around and call the POSIX.2 
> interface, but in the case of lint or dis, life is not that simple.

All of lint, cc, and dis are Development utilities.  You don't have
to implement them unless you want to claim the Development option.

You don't ever have to implement dis, since it's an optional part of the
Development option.  lint can often be implemented substantially
with an ANSI C compiler (or a modified ANSI C compiler).

Talk to X/Open for a full description of the required and optional
pieces of XCU4. 

Dave


Volume-Number: Volume 28, Number 78