Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Laurent Bercot
But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. How do you know for sure ? Busybox isn't the only alternative userspace. There are other several, if lesser-known, projects that provide low-level userspace tools.

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Rich Felker
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:29:48PM +0800, ChenQi wrote: On 09/18/2013 04:47 PM, Pere wrote: On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Laurent Bercot ska-dietl...@skarnet.org wrote: But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the userspace, regardless of the C library in my

[PATCH] dpkg: copy old control file during --configure

2013-09-18 Thread Tobias Waldekranz
In write_status_file it was assumed that the deb_file_t had a valid control_file. However, this is not the case when running --configure. This lead dpkg to write a status-line without any preceding control information. This patch uses the control information read from the old status file if none

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott
On 2013-09-18 04:18, Laurent Bercot wrote: But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion. How do you know for sure ? As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. If the uname is provided by BusyBox, the

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Laurent Bercot
How do you know for sure ? As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. That would only prove that the uname implementation is Busybox's. That wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system. Running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system (that is, configuring BusyBox to build only the

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott
On 2013-09-18 12:38, Laurent Bercot wrote: How do you know for sure ? As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname. That would only prove that the uname implementation is Busybox's. That wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system. Anyone running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Pere
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote: Hi, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote: On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote: - strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux); + strcpy(uname_info.os, +#ifdef __GLIBC__ +

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Aaro Koskinen
Hi, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote: On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote: - strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux); + strcpy(uname_info.os, +#ifdef __GLIBC__ + GNU/ +#endif + Linux); I'd agree that most BusyBox-based

Re: [PATCH] Fix incorrect OS reporting in uname -o

2013-09-18 Thread Tito
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 23:19:51 Pere wrote: On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote: Hi, On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote: On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote: - strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);