site_archiver@lists.apple.com Delivered-To: darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com As an outside observer, I can see this clearly as a bug; it is a rather obvious omission of POSIX-defined behavior. I don't see Per as belaboring his point too much or that he is trying to get it more attention. It seems to me he is just responding to the defensiveness that you and others have exhibited about this bug, as if the bug might be dismissed as not really being a bug. --Amanda _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Darwin-kernel mailing list (Darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/darwin-kernel/site_archiver%40lists.a... On Nov 26, 2007, at 5:17 PM, Daniel Eischen wrote: Well, Per did start the thread by saying, in effect, "Apple is making a false claim that Mac OS X is UNIX 2003 compliant." Since it does pass the compliance tests, a bit of defensiveness on Apple's part does not seem unreasonable. I also raised questions about whether or not it's really a bug, though I certainly wasn't intending to be defensive--I have no vested interest in whether or not Leopard is UNIX03 compliant. I just know from sitting on both sides of the standardization table that compliance with any standard is sometimes not obvious, even when the language seems plain. Test suites exist in order to provide objective data points. If this turns out to be a bug (which, as I noted, does seem to be a reasonable interpretation in the case of file descriptors for interactive devices such as ptys/ttys), I'd describe it as a bug in the Open Group test suite as much as with Apple's implementation. Implementors rely on the accuracy and coverage of test suites. Just as there will always be cases that automated tests will miss, the certification for an implementation only means that is passes the compliance tests, not that it is somehow error free. This email sent to site_archiver@lists.apple.com