From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 15:12:20 -0400 From: Kurt H Maier To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-ID: <20130329191220.GA9082@intma.in> References: <17666A31-B506-46C1-972F-2D6407C4B8DD@corpus-callosum.com> <20130329174148.GA98286@intma.in> <24472F85-7A42-4CDD-8CF2-5A1CEB25E109@corpus-callosum.com> <20130329190345.GA2335@polynum.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20130329190345.GA2335@polynum.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] APE inconsistencies Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3a123ea8-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 08:03:45PM +0100, tlaronde@polynum.com wrote: > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 01:26:53PM -0500, Jeff Sickel wrote: > > > > Though if I check recent FreeBSD manuals, it's all there. And given that > > this is part of the BSD extensions to APE, those might be more relevant > > than the Linux man pages. Not that BSD tries to be POSIX compliant > > any more or less than GNU/Linux. > > > > It should be indeed underlined that this is a compatibility feature, and > not a POSIX feature. It seems that it is still here for legacy > compatibility on BSD (it is still here in NetBSD for example) but the > question arises whether it is worth supporting (because starting to > support all not POSIX is a daunting task). > > This is what is said in the APE paper. The problem is not with Plan9 > APE, it is that there are not a lot of programs that are written in a > POSIX compliant way... > It is a POSIX feature, I think. It's just an outmoded one. Supporting all revisions of POSIX is damn near impossible. Does APE have an explicit target? khm