On Thu, 2004-08-26 at 19:28 +0200, Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando wrote:
> Tobias Burnus wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Will someone implement this feature ?
>
> Today, I start to implement, and see that on rpm-based distro,
> likes: RedHat, Yellowdog, FTOSX, etc
> haves the file, "/etc/'distro-name'-
Tobias Burnus wrote:
Hi,
Will someone implement this feature ?
Today, I start to implement, and see that on rpm-based distro,
likes: RedHat, Yellowdog, FTOSX, etc
haves the file, "/etc/'distro-name'-release that may be got from rpm
commands.
I also note that generally, all these dist
Hello,
Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
I for one don't see any reason to add a 'uname -d' if lsb-release is
already specified. I imagine that it's easier for utilities to
check for the existence of the lsb-release executable than it is to
check for uname's support of a -d flag.
The only concern is th
"Wichmann, Mats D" wrote:
>
> >I think the point was that there already *is* a command named lsb-
> >release (try it- it's there in Fedora 2 at least).
>
> Yup, on RH and related (Fedora) releases it's been around since
> a post-release patch to 7.3.
>
> >I for one don't see any reason to add a
>I think the point was that there already *is* a command named lsb-
>release (try it- it's there in Fedora 2 at least).
Yup, on RH and related (Fedora) releases it's been around since
a post-release patch to 7.3.
>I for one don't see any reason to add a 'uname -d' if lsb-release is
>already spe
On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 21:24 +0200, 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Giovanni
