On 03/12/10 10:32 AM, Don Cragun wrote:
> On Mar 12, 2010, at 14:49:39 +0100, olga.kryzhanovska at gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>> AT&T AST sed from the ast-open package. It is a direct descendant of
>> the AT&T sed in UNIX. The same package contains ksh93, has the same
>> license (CPL 1.0) as ksh93 and passes VSC.
>>
> While it is nice (and correct) to say that ksh93 passes the VSC tests
> for sh, that is not an indication that the sed functionality built
> into ksh93 will pass the VSC tests for sed.
>
> I assume that the Oracle sponsor you get for your putback for this case
> will verify that this version of sed passes the VSC tests before you
> putback. I also assume that you (with help from David and Glenn) will
> fix any failures detected (either by changing the code or by getting
> approved TSDs from TOG for test suite failures) if sed does not pass
> the VSC sed tests. This is what has been done with all of the other
> ksh93 project putbacks.
>
I don't think there was any indication anywhere that the bits would
*not* pass POSIX conformance tests. Obviously a change of this nature
(specifically to /usr/xpg4/bin/sed) requires such conformance testing to
be done. Such testing, however, is not architectural in scope.
(Conversely, if the team were going to abandon POSIX conformance, then
that would be architectural in scope. But that is not what has been
proposed.)
- Garrett
