On 2013-09-18 12:38, Laurent Bercot wrote: >>> How do you know for sure ? >> As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. > > That would only prove that the "uname" implementation is Busybox's. That > wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system.
Anyone running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system can easily patch coreutils/uname.c to change the output of `uname -o`. I suggest that "BusyBox/Linux" be the "default" otherwise. Perhaps this could be added as an option to Kconfig to obviate a patch. -- Patrick "P. J." McDermott http://www.pehjota.net/ Lead Developer, ProteanOS http://www.proteanos.com/ _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
