This is my take on the discussion so far: As the method of forcing an environment to be POSIX conforming is implementation-defined in XBD 2, this method should be part of the conformance questionnaire, for both booting into this environment before the interactive shell starts, for freestanding implementations, and how to start a child process interactively that conforms if the system starts with extensions enabled, for freestanding and hosted implementations. If the questionnaire doesn't have these answers, or a pointer to the specific documentation provided with the implementation that describes the method, it can in my opinion be considered defective. For this purpose, again my opinion, online documentation is supplementary, not a substitute for providing it with the implementation, as Internet access may be unavailable or prohibited for physical data security reasons in locations a system is expected to be installed in. Any link can 404 at any time too, due to being unilaterally deleted by website administrators.
Note this does not cover the steps necessary to install an OS package so this method will work, for providers that offer both hardware and software. It only has to work when you buy both the hardware and OS software at the same time from the one vendor and specify then you want the POSIX conforming version. A provider may limit the hardware it warrants to one particular configuration, yet provide multiple configurations it doesn't have to warrant. These systems will usually have the OS preinstalled, so the provider and buyer can be assured what was shipped satisfies the conformance warranty out of the box. The provider does not have to warrant an OS package acquired separately using the same generic trademark name can be installed to produce a conforming environment, nor any system packaged for retail distribution to anonymous purchasers. These will frequently only boot to environments that have extensions enabled. Providers may include all the pieces necessary to create a conforming environment in a distribution like this as an installation option, but such installs are "as is, any core dumps created are not their problem", even with hardware they manufacture. The situation with OSS versions is similar, except it's plausible the hardware used to gain certification with is not commercially available as a packaged system by any vendor, so no vendor is obligated to honor conformance requirements. Where there is a vendor, they only have to warrant it if they use the POSIX trademark in advertising and only for the exact hardware configuration used in testing. The net result is there may be distributions that are conforming and some that aren't that use the same name; the expectation a user can have is that different versions will be able to use applications compiled with the platform's extensions, not necessarily in the POSIX environment. As long as the distribution that is conforming is kept conforming the letter of certification requirements is met; though practically it can be out of keeping with the spirit of it. In a message dated 4/21/2017 12:29:45 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, [email protected] writes: hi Stephane, Joerg, all Further comments below > On 21 Apr 2017, at 16:13, Stephane Chazelas <[email protected]> wrote: > {snip} >> You will have to contact Oracle if you need more information. >> The certification requires the supplier to supply a compliant system configuration if a buyer wishes to procure one. > [...] > > Thanks. So if I understand correctly what you're saying, Solaris > 11 may or may not be compliant, the OpenGroup doesn't tell us as > much. Just that it should be possible to order/download a system > from Oracle that uses Solaris 11 (that bears the name? That has > some components of Solaris 11?) that one should be able to > configure to be POSIX compliant using vendor supplied > instructions? > No you do not understand correctly. Organizations with certified systems warrant and represent through a legal agreement that their system conforms and will continue to conform. This is backed up by over 40,000 tests. We noted, in a piece you omitted on the reply, that we cannot dictate a vendors product configurations, but provide the mechanism for buyers to procure products by requesting the certified product. I will have our team followup to see if further information on product configuration can be supplied in the conformance statement appendices. To answer Jeorg’s question: >Is there probaly a way to withdraw a certification after that time in case >that a new enhanced or fixed test suite is no longer passed? There is an annual renewal of certification, and when significant changes have been made to a test suite then updated evidence of compliance is required, regards Andrew -------- Andrew Josey VP, Standards & Certification, The Open Group Email: [email protected] Apex Plaza,Forbury Road,Reading,Berks. RG1 1AX,UK. Voice:+44 118 902 3044 The Open Group Berlin 2017, April 24 - 27 http://www.opengroup.org/events Download the Event App: http://crowd.cc/4YmU ArchiMate, DirecNet, Making Standards Work, OpenPegasus, The Open Group, TOGAF, and UNIX are registered trademarks and Boundaryless Information Flow, Dependability Through Assuredness, EMMM, FACE, IT4IT and the IT4IT Logo, O-DEF, Open FAIR, Open Platform 3.0, Open Process Automation, Open Trusted Technology Provider, SOSA, the Open ‘O’ logo and The Open Group Certification logo are trademarks of The Open Group.
