Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y "A senior OpenBSD developer has complained on a mailing list that upstream vendors of free and open source software are adding in changes without any thought of whether downstream users could adapt to the change. Marc Espie said this would hurt smaller players by not allowing them to keep up with the changes. Basically what is happening is that numerous changes are being made to Linux and smaller projects like OpenBSD cannot keep up with the changes. And, according to Espie, not all these changes are strictly necessary."
Thread beginning with comment 548262
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kwan_e
Member since:
2007-02-18

The GNU tools aren't at fault it is developers that aren't conforming to the standard which is the problem.

It really is that simple. If I want a piece of software to run on another unix whether it is commericial or opensource it is a pain to port as discussed in the article.


What definition of "conforming" are you using? Does "conforming" mean not using extensions? If so, do programs that use, say, Qt libraries, non-conforming because they're not mandated by the POSIX standards?

But as the article and people here say, a lot of people aren't looking to have their things run on other unixes. They're not obligated to, especially since Linux is popular. It's the OpenBSD ports maintainers that want to port software.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

"The GNU tools aren't at fault it is developers that aren't conforming to the standard which is the problem.

It really is that simple. If I want a piece of software to run on another unix whether it is commericial or opensource it is a pain to port as discussed in the article.


What definition of "conforming" are you using? Does "conforming" mean not using extensions? If so, do programs that use, say, Qt libraries, non-conforming because they're not mandated by the POSIX standards?
"

Oh comon, QT is different because it is a set of libraries and presentation framework.

If the extension is not part of the POSIX (whichever level is supported), and the script uses it is not conforming.

I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the issue.

The main complaint is that the Linuxism aren't needed and are relatively trivial to get around (such as the example given) and is a detrimental to other projects which aren't Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kwan_e Member since:
2007-02-18

Oh comon, QT is different because it is a set of libraries and presentation framework.

If the extension is not part of the POSIX (whichever level is supported), and the script uses it is not conforming.


No, it's exactly the same situation. Anything that is not in POSIX but runs on POSIX can be considered an extension. Tell me where in the POSIX standard that states implementations can't put in extensions?

I think you have a fundamental mis-understanding of the issue.


You're the one trying to argue that extensions to a standard makes something non-conforming. Only extensions that break the standard are non-conforming. Extensions that add entirely new features that doesn't effect existing features are always conforming.

The main complaint is that the Linuxism aren't needed and are relatively trivial to get around (such as the example given) and is a detrimental to other projects which aren't Linux.


If it's trivial, then by definition it is not detrimental. If the BSD or other OS port maintainers want to use other people's code, then they do the work. It's not like KDE is mandating the BSDs use their desktop environment and then not changing their builds to not use sed -i.

Reply Parent Score: 3