On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:18:59PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> > See attached.
>
> What is the point of such a change?
>
> People (presumably) use uname -o to determine whether
> the OS is Linux, or BSD, or other Unix.
>
> On Fedora, it
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Rich Felker wrote:
> See attached.
What is the point of such a change?
People (presumably) use uname -o to determine whether
the OS is Linux, or BSD, or other Unix.
On Fedora, it says "GNU/Linux". I suspect many other distros have the same.
My guess is, whoeve
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 23:19:51 Pere wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen 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");
> >> >
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
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen 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__
>> > +
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-Bus
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 th
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
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
> > wrote:
> >>>But I'd call such a system "BusyBox/Linux" instead, since BusyBox is the
> >>>userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion.
> >>
>
On 09/18/2013 04:47 PM, Pere wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, 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 ?
Because this is Busybox's uname.
I think i
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, 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 ?
Because this is Busybox's uname.
--
Pere
_
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.
t
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 systems can hardly be called
"GNU/Linux", even with glibc. It seems in
13 matches
Mail list logo
