patacongo commented on PR #9199: URL: https://github.com/apache/nuttx/pull/9199#issuecomment-1540956895
> I'm not arguing that Linux glibc still uses |ESRCH|. The > question is, should NuttX be Linux compliant or POSIX > compliant? I think we know the answer. If POSIX does not > specify |ESRCH| error code and even more, state that it should > not be returned, so I do not see a reason for adding it. > > Here is my thought: > > 1. If the behavior is explicitly specified by POSIX, follow it > 2. If POSIX say it's implemented defined or not mention at all, > follow other OS(e.g. Linux/FreeBSD) > > Does this make sense? > > Yes. But I would also say that if behavior is explicitly specified by > POSIX, the links to POSIX spec should be specified, not the link to > other OS manual pages. > If the functionality goes beyond POSIX then we can rely on description > from other OS. > The reason for following POSIX is to assure portability and re-usability of software with other POSIX operating systems. But what would we be portable with in the open source world? There are no open source POSIX operating systems. Linux, BSD, Nuttx are mostly POSIX but none are fully POSIX compliant and nothing substantial written for any one of them will just drop into another and just run. It takes a little work to adapt applications for one to work on another. So why do we follow POSIX? Personally, I like the idea being POSIX and I agree with you all in that. But Linux is the most popular of the open source, mostly POSIX operating systems and certainly the biggest benefit would be realized if we were GNU/Linux compatible in API definitions. > Message ID: ***@***.*** -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
