On Friday April 20 2007 17:55, Matthew Burgess wrote: > Hi, > > http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use > the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS > uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more > architectures still. > > Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic > purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at > all in its current form, I'd like to drop it. As the ticket mentions, the > correct way to implement this, according to upstream, is to have the kernel > make the processor type available via a syscall. > > Thoughts, comments? > > Regards, > > Matt.
The Posix standard for the uname utility and the utsname structure are not identical... the standard for the uname utility allows for "machine class" and "processor type", which are not supplied by utsname. So according to the Posix standard, the uname utility is expected to somehow detect the processor type without help from the kernel, and this is impossible to do in a portable way. The Linux kernel team can't add the processor type to utsname without violating standards. They could however add it somewhere else. robert
pgpbjVWrt6Te0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
