On Tue, Jun 26, 2007 at 08:26:37AM +0200, Steffen Grunewald wrote:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 11:11:06AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
Well, that's a mistake on their part, assuming distribution-specific
output from a standard tool.
well, it might be. But the result is that under Debian the installation
fails while it works with RH, Fedora, ... you name it.
hmm. Is there any chance that the installation script was *designed* to
work on those distributions? (I note that you list two redhat
variants...what does slackware do, for example?)
Debian seems to
be the only distro that returns "unknown" when queried for the processor
type. This is embarassing ... it should be easy to return the same value
as for machine type, isn't it?
That would be incorrect; the details are in the bug log. If the machine
type were what you were looking for, why not just use uname -m? (And
forward that suggestion upstream.) If you look at the posix standard for
uname, there is no such thing as a -i or a -p:
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/utilities/uname.html
On openbsd, e.g., you'll get nothing for uname -i and a long text string
for uname -p. I'm fairly certain that redhat used to return something
long and hideous for uname -p as well, so I wouldn't rely on any
particular output from a non-standardized option.
Mike Stone
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
