Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The person preparing uname for inclusion into a distribution package
> will have to manually provide values for these four fields in a
> configuration file. To ensure that this is not forgotten, the uname
> distribution should refuse to compile out of the
"Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a.
>
> uname is sufficient.
>
> Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve
> the matter.
I do not think anyone is claiming that lsb is prohibite
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
> Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX. LSB is the venue for the issue.
>
> Regards, Bruce
Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
that gives all this stuff.
> lsb_release -a
> LSB Version:1.3
> Distributor ID: RedHa
Nick Stoughton wrote:
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX. LSB is the venue for the issue.
Regards, Bruce
Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
that gives all this stuff.
lsb_release -a
LSB Version:1.3
Dist
Hello,
If no one else is trying to implement these features, I'd like to
give it a shot.
regards,
GVK
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004, Markus Kuhn wrote:
> Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
>
> At present, the 'uname -o' command simply gives GNU/Linux for any of the
> many Linux distributions. Sin
"Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando" wrote:
>
> Markus Kuhn wrote:
>
> >Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> I like this proposal, but I prefer to maintain "-o" (OS) instead of
> "-d" (Distro).
>
> However, when approved must be POSIX complaint.
Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX.
Markus Kuhn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> $ uname -d
> SuSE Linux Professional 9.1 (DVD 32-bit)
> $ uname -dv
> SuSE
> $ uname -dp
> Linux Professional
> $ uname -dr
> 9.1
> $ uname -da
> DVD 32-bit
Should the meaning of -v/-p/-r/-a depend on the presence of -d, or
should these get new option names
Markus Kuhn wrote:
Feature proposal for POSIX uname:
Hi,
I like this proposal, but I prefer to maintain "-o" (OS) instead of
"-d" (Distro).
However, when approved must be POSIX complaint.
Thanks,
Giovanni
At present, the 'uname -o' command simply gives GNU/Linux for any of the
many Linux
