> Octave Orgeron writes: > > Now putting all that info into uname would just > complicate life for everyone and break all sorts of > stuff. As such, uname is for very high-level info and > isainfo is for detailed. > > Exactly. Putting detailed processor information into > uname is not > only unnecessary, but it breaks backward > compatibility by forcing > people who are depending on uname output (often > inside of 'configure' > scripts) to deal with new and unexpected responses > from the system. > > When we've done this in the past, it's been to add > support for a new > processor or system family, and not when we've just > added support for > yet another variant of an existing processor. > > Breaking existing code can sometimes be the only > answer, but it'd > better be for a really good reason. I'm not sure > that merely > disliking "i386" as shorthand for "all Intel and AMD > x86 compatible > CPUs" is enough of a reason to make ./configure fall > over and die. May be fears are exaggerated? I have Debian amd64 server with tons of various services at my office and uname -p shows me "unknown" (this is bug in Debian and Ubuntu) but I successfully make all programs that I needed. It seems to me that anything terrible would not occur if the uname -p produced the x86_64 output on machine with 64-bit cpu. Nevertheless, looking through internet I found the same discussions for linux and some *bsd and looks like thus not only solaris question. Well, will waiting for next generation cpu.
Regards, Alex -- This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
