Collin Funk <[email protected]> writes: > I'd prefer that people just fix the buggy programs that use 'uname -p'.
I agree, but not everyone has the luxury of "just fixing" it. Until then, uname offers and documents the option, it should try to return *something* usable. > Some notes on various distributions, since these options have > unfortunately caused me a lot of wasted time. So we have three options: 1. Do nothing, people keep complaining, you keep getting wasted time. 2. Remove the option completely, and exit with a non-zero exit error if the user tries to use it. 3. Return something reasonable and easy so people are happy. I suppose a fourth: 4. Return something overly specific so that people still have to fix their scripts, but -p now returns something even more useful. (This is what I'm contemplating for glibc, since we need to know more for ifuncs to work.) You've been doing #1. I'm proposing #3. If you really want people to fix their scripts, you need to do #2 or #4, but they'll hate you for it ;-) I suppose a fifth option: 5. Have -p and -i print "Stop using -p/-i! They're stupid! Use -m instead!" :-)
