On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jim Meyering <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> I suppose arch should not be used in new scripts, but that's just
> >> a gut feeling. If so, documentation should make it clear.
> >
> > I agree that the documentation should advise people to use uname and
> > to avoid arch. 'uname' is standardized, but 'arch' is not. The Sun
> > documentation already advises people not to use 'arch'.
> >
> > One other thing. This implementation of 'arch' is incompatible with
> > Solaris. Solaris 'arch' uses the following algorithm:
> >
> > If "uname -p" outputs "sun4", output "sun4"; otherwise output
> > whatever "uname -m" returns.
> >
> > Also, Solaris 'arch' accepts a "-k" option that causes "arch" to
> > behave just like "uname -m".
> >
> > Also, Solaris 'arch' accepts an optional operand that causes it to
> > silently exit with status 0 if "arch" would have printed that operand,
> > 1 otherwise.
>
> Ouch. This makes it look like coreutils should not install arch
> by default. What do you think of a new configure-time option that
> would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
> I would probably add "su" to the list, since most installers don't
> want the version from coreutils.
It would be nice to have:
--enable-programs=<list>
.. to enable programs that aren't installed by default
(e.g su, arch)
--disable-programs=<list>
.. to disable programs that are installed by default
(for example RHEL/FC doesn't use hostname, uptime and kill from
coreutils)
My plan is use something like this for a next util-linux release,
because upstream has almost always different point of view that end
users/distributors.
> I'm not too interested in making arch compatible with the Solaris one,
I agree :-)
> so there should probably be some fail-safe to force installation of
> "arch" on a Solaris system. The goal was simply to pull in the one
> from the util-linux package.
The goal is share the uname code with arch rather than duplicate that
on two places.
> I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
> simply not adding it to coreutils should be considered an option, too.
Ah yes, this is possible too.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
_______________________________________________
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
