Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 15:46:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> To: "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/ufs/ufs ufs_acl.c Message-ID: <200110271946.f9RJkXe88069@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027134055.11981A-100000@fledge.watson.org> References: <200110270539.f9R5dHY50655@freefall.freebsd.org> <Pine.NEB.3.96L.1011027134055.11981A-100000@fledge.watson.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
<<On Sat, 27 Oct 2001 13:42:43 -0400 (EDT), "Andrew R. Reiter" <arr@watson.org> said: > just say "We're POSIX.1e compliant... sorta kinda maybe" ? We can't even say that, since POSIX.1e officially unexists. I have hope that the people working on this will eventually get together with Nick Stoughton (USENIX standards liaison) and PASC (the POSIX people) to charter a new .1e effort (which by IEEE rules will have to be called something else). The problem with .1e was that its scope was too large, and the group was unable to come to concensus on some of the interfaces which were included in that scope. A new effort, if chartered, would presumably restrict its scope to just those interfaces on which concensus has already been achieved. -GAWollman To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200110271946.f9RJkXe88069>