On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen <aaro.koski...@iki.fi> wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote: >> On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote: >> > - strcpy(uname_info.os, "GNU/Linux"); >> > + strcpy(uname_info.os, >> > +#ifdef __GLIBC__ >> > + "GNU/" >> > +#endif >> > + "Linux"); >> >> I'd agree that most BusyBox-based systems can hardly be called >> "GNU/Linux", even with glibc. It seems inappropriate to call a system >> "GNU" if it has little or no GNU software. > > Maybe in the case when GNU toolchain was not used to compile the system? > >> But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the >> userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. > > My systems have uname from busybox, but I also have ~80 other packages > installed, so "BusyBox/Linux" would be also wrong. Maybe it should > be configurable.
I don't think "BusyBox/Linux" is a good idea. And I can't see that making it configurable solves a real issue. Regarding the original patch, not that my opinion matters, but if BusyBox tries to match GNU behaviour in most situations, and Busybox partially derives from GNU source code, then the current behaviour makes sense. -- Pere _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
