Just a curiosity about the standard

Just a curiosity about the standard

Post by KJK::Hyperio » Sun, 20 Apr 2003 12:08:54



why has the standard been completely reworded to use the verb "shall"
in place of "must"? don't they mean the same thing?
 
 
 

Just a curiosity about the standard

Post by Marc Rochkin » Mon, 21 Apr 2003 02:08:59



Quote:> why has the standard been completely reworded to use the verb "shall"
> in place of "must"? don't they mean the same thing?

In the language of the standard, they do not--one is defined, and one is
not.

"shall" means a requirementon the implementation or on a strictly conforming
application, and the standard includes such a definition. "must" is not
defined and any such usage is a mistake that needs to be corrected.

--Marc

 
 
 

1. LCSDNYR 2001 -> standards, standards, standards

[snip - a call for standardisation]

I completely agree, but I don't think Linux is going the wrong way (yet).

As always, tarballs (./configure, make, su -c 'make install') stay (oh yes
they will). Package-like installing (cfr deb, rpm, jbl, ...) goes the
right way: easy, user-friendly and without any hassle. I don't think it's
necessary to evolve to one package. Each type of packaging has it
advantages and disadvantages. It's a choice, a mindgame if you will. Some
people like the deb-packages since they are extremely easy to install.
Some others want rpm, since the availability of those files is enormous.
Some people stay with the tarballs.

I don't think Linux is going the wrong way.

With packages without any hassle. With tarballs you should look at the
Makefile before 'make install'-ing and search for 'make uninstall'. If
that's available (and correctly programmed), there isn't any other hassle.

This could be one point of discussion (tarballs - uninstalling software),
but I don't know enough about tarballs (I only use them if I can't find
any rpm-files for it) so I'd better shut up :-/

Again, with packages no troubles. Tarballs are also without any hassle,
since upgrading is very simpel. Configuration-files stay (thus not the way
M$ handled things, i.e. registry), binaries get upgraded, libraries are
... how do they say it... renewed? I mean, a newer version of library
doesn't overwrite things (f.i. libsmpg-2.0-3.so.2), only has a greater
version-number (f.i. libsmpg-2.1-1.so.2). And ldconfig makes sure programs
use the right library...

/etc/*.conf, $HOME/.*rc, ... I think Linux (and most unix-like OS'ses) are
doing a great job on that. They are easy to back-up, easy to modify
(manually AND with scripts/tools), ...

--
 SwifT

2. Linux Frequently Asked Questions with Answers (FAQ: 1/2)

3. redirecting standard output and standard error

4. Anybody get Netscape 6 Preview 3 to install?

5. standard out and standard error

6. SGI Security Advisory 19951101 - telnetd

7. differentiate between standard output and standard error?

8. mmap & LARGEFILE

9. System V standard vs. BSD standard -> where to find?

10. standard out and standard error questions

11. capturing standard error info but not standard out

12. No standard GUI, but standard metaphors!

13. How to redirect standard error to standard output (in csh)?