On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Red Hat has a file called /etc/redhat-release. Debian has a file called
> /etc/debian_release (or something close to that; I don't have a Debian
> system to check). Other distros do similar things. Of course, this
> leads to an identification algo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:15:36AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote:
> > I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
> > I've yet to find a reliable method.
>
> /etc/iss
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Jeff Macdonald hath spake thusly:
> Ok, how about /proc/version?
/proc/version contains the version of the kernel, the user@host it was
built on, and the version of the compiler it was built with. The
system it was built on n
On 19 Aug 2002, at 2:21pm, Jeff Macdonald wrote:
> Ok, how about /proc/version?
That just appears to be the union of the information contained in "uname
-a" and "gcc -v". In particular, it does not actually give the distribution
anywhere. I suppose you could maintain a table which mapped comp
Ok, how about /proc/version?
[jeff@server1 jeff]$ more /etc/redhat-release
Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
[jeff@server1 jeff]$ more /proc/version
Linux version 2.2.17-14.8RS ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) (gcc version
egcs-2.91.66 19990314/Linux (egcs-1.1.2 release))
#1 Fri Apr 13 01:58:55 CDT 2001
[jeff
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:26:12PM -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> > At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly:
> > > > Which most security-concious admins still remove or ze
In a message dated: 19 Aug 2002 13:50:17 EDT
Jeff Macdonald said:
>How about using GCC?
>
>$ gcc -v
>Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
>gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
H, interesting. However, it's not reliable, since I've seen
many, m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly:
> > I disagree. The solution is to provide a package specific to each
> > distribution. Of course, your system admin has to pay attention...
> > It would need to be named differently on each rel
How about using GCC?
$ gcc -v
Reading specs from /usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-redhat-linux/2.96/specs
gcc version 2.96 2731 (Red Hat Linux 7.3 2.96-112)
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 11:26, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
>
>
> > I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or
> > Red Hat? I've
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 13:30:30 EDT
Mark Komarinski said:
>This is a really strange discussion. You (collectively) want to know
>what kind of distro you're running, but the tools you've been given
>are security holes because they give the exact information you're
>looking for!
Ex
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 12:26:12PM -0400, Derek D. Martin wrote:
> At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly:
> > > Which most security-concious admins still remove or zero as a matter
> > > of course. Why tell the net-at-large what holes to look for?
> >
> > Uhm...how can you te
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 12:27:43 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
> Figuring out which distro "flavor" you are on (Red Hat Linux, Debian
>GNU/Linux, etc.) is, I think, the most we can ask for.
Agreed, but it would be nice to have my cake and eat it too :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
It
>At least in 6.2, they tested for file existance before
>trying to use it... 7.3 doesn't even bother doing that.
You apparently missed their announcement; as of 7.3
RedHat introduced the optimization of simply assuming
that *everybody* is using their distribution, so the
ID files are deemed n
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
> For example, if I have a RH 6.2 system, I might well upgrade the
> sh-utils package to that which shipped with 7.3. Does uname now
> report that I'm using 7.3 or 6.2? How does it deter
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
> I suspect redhat-release was just never included in the Kickstart profile.
> Whether that is a bug in Kickstart or a bug in the dependencies depends on
> your point-of-view. Either wa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Mark Komarinski hath spake thusly:
> > Which most security-concious admins still remove or zero as a matter
> > of course. Why tell the net-at-large what holes to look for?
>
> Uhm...how can you tell the contents of /etc/issu
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 12:09pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> For example, if I have a RH 6.2 system, I might well upgrade the sh-utils
> package to that which shipped with 7.3.
Figuring out which distro "flavor" you are on (Red Hat Linux, Debian
GNU/Linux, etc.) is, I think, the most we can ask
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:59:25 EDT
mike ledoux said:
>That's what I thought you were going to say. Of course, as pointed out
>elsethread, that method is quite unreliable, at least for Red Hat.
Well, yeah, which has been my complaint for a long time. There is no
reliable method
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:46am, mike ledoux wrote:
> [root@ibm1 /root]# cat /etc/redhat-release
> cat: /etc/redhat-release: No such file or directory
>
> This is on a kickstart-installed RH6.2 box. 'redhat-release' is an
> optional package, at least in 6.2.
*shakes head in disbelief* Accor
Likewise, SuSE has a file, /etc/SuSE-release
I'm not sure, but this might be part of LSB.
On 19 Aug 2002 at 11:40, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Red Hat has a file called /etc/redhat-release. Debian has a file called
> /etc/debian_release (or something close to that; I don't have a Debian
> system
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:15:36 EDT
mike ledoux said:
>I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
>I've yet to find a reliable method.
cat /etc/redhat_release || cat /etc/debian_version
Almost all distros do have a similar file.
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:43:06AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:28:09AM -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:15:36AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote:
> > > I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
> > > I've yet to find a re
In a message dated: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 11:12:51 EDT
Bob Bell said:
>On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:46:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> Yeah, but even rms has conceded that a Solaris system with the GNU
>> utilities added to it isn't and shouldn't be referred to as GNU/Sol
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:26am, Michael O'Donnell wrote:
> Wouldn't the presence of (some combination of) the various apt-related
> directories be a reliable sign that you had a Debian box?
APT has been ported to RPM.
> I don't know much about RedHat but I'd assume the corresponding RPM stuff
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:28am, Mark Komarinski wrote:
>> I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
>> I've yet to find a reliable method.
>
> /etc/issue will tell you.
Relying on /etc/issue is a bad idea. If the admin is using /etc/issue for
what it was intende
On Sun, 2002-08-18 at 07:10, Thomas M. Albright wrote:
> On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
>
>
> > Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 ...
>
>
> I tried to go look at, maybe download, the new beta but all I got were
> empty directories. I don't suppose you have some .
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, mike ledoux wrote:
> I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
> I've yet to find a reliable method.
>
cat /etc/redhat-release. if it doesn't work, you're not using redhat. :)
--
TARogue (Linux user number 234357)
When you have an efficient g
On Mon, 19 Aug 2002, at 11:15am, mike ledoux wrote:
> I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
> I've yet to find a reliable method.
Red Hat has a file called /etc/redhat-release. Debian has a file called
/etc/debian_release (or something close to that; I don't h
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 11:15:36AM -0400, mike ledoux wrote:
> I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or Red Hat?
> I've yet to find a reliable method.
/etc/issue will tell you.
-Mark
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTE
> I'm curious; just how do you identify if a system is Debian or
> Red Hat? I've yet to find a reliable method.
Wouldn't the presence of (some combination of) the various
apt-related directories be a reliable sign that you had
a Debian box? Like, say, /etc/apt, /var/cache/apt and
/var/lib/apt
On Mon, Aug 19, 2002 at 10:46:21AM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, but even rms has conceded that a Solaris system with the GNU
> utilities added to it isn't and shouldn't be referred to as GNU/Solaris :)
Do you have a pointer to that? I'm curious what distinctio
In a message dated: 19 Aug 2002 02:00:50 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
> I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o'
>functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out
>'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a' or 'lsb_release -as' you
>can get all
In a message dated: 17 Aug 2002 15:42:06 EDT
Paul Iadonisi said:
> I'd have to agree that this is a pretty useless feature.
Only because they've chosen to make it so. Of course, there's
nothing preventing us from modifying that to identify which release
of which distro it is. I'll attempt to
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:55:35 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>> Therefore, the only way to discover what this field reports on other
>> distros or versions of UNIX is to get the source for sh-utils ...
>
> Here's a radical idea: Get the source for the package and see where the
>hel
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 14:17:30 EDT
mike ledoux said:
>Eh, if this really is a new version of GNU sh-utils, I'm sure they
>wouldn't go to that trouble. Much simpler to just have the system report
>itself as GNU/`uname -s`. :)
Yeah, but even rms has conceded that a Solaris system
On Mon, 2002-08-19 at 02:13, John Abreau wrote:
> Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o'
> > functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out
> > 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a'
Paul Iadonisi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o'
> functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out
> 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -a' or 'lsb_release -as' you
> can get all the distribution sp
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Paul Iadonisi hath spake thusly:
> I wouldn't worry about it. I would summarily ignore the 'uname -o'
> functionality (if it can even be called that). Someone just pointed out
> 'lsb_release -d' to me. Using 'lsb_release -
On Thu, 2002-08-15 at 15:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
> >In a way, this is a good thing. However it will annoy me to no end if
> >the different distributions do not customize this field to reflect the
> >distribution in use.
>
> Or, if the customize for each release such that a generic
On 17 Aug 2002, Paul Iadonisi wrote:
> Add to that the fact that Red Hat's latest beta, Limbo2 ...
I tried to go look at, maybe download, the new beta but all I got were
empty directories. I don't suppose you have some .iso's or maybe even
actual cd's we (actually I) could borrow? :)
P.S.
On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 14:55, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
>
> Here's a radical idea: Get the source for the package and see where the
> hell it gets all these identification strings in the first place. :)
Very radical. Which is what I've just done. The -o option causes the
(preproces
On Fri, 16 Aug 2002, at 1:16pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Since this new version of uname is evidently so new that the GNU project
> hasn't even updated their own web pages for it ...
That just means it was released within the past five years. GNU's project
management makes Microsoft's look g
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:41:50 EDT
mike ledoux said:
>Is this 2.0.12 version GNU sh-utils, or something else? I noticed that
>in your output it reported itself as '(sh-utils)', where the GNU versions
>report themselves as '(GNU sh-utils)'. Looking on ftp.gnu.org, the latest
>*re
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, mike ledoux hath spake thusly:
> What is the point? If these options only exist in the unstable version
> of debian, they aren't of much use right now.
One possible point, for those with a bit of spare time and energy, is
to
>that sh-utils 2.0.12 is out. Debian is the only distribution which
>has it right now that I know of (and only in Sid AFAIK).
The testing distribution (AKA sarge) has 2.0.12 also.
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnhl
>>> As mwl pointed out, it's very likely
>>> that this field is a customized field which needs to be
>>> customized by each distribution/OS maintainer to report
>>> whatever they want it to,
>>> or, it will display a default string for this field.
Yeah, I certainly agree with that and am rather
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 12:03:15 EDT
"Bayard R. Coolidge" said:
You seem to have missed the same point Gerry did:
>
>Yeah, I guess I did, BUT, SuSE has *NOT* issued an 'official'
>RPM to update the related packages, either, so what I gave
>you is what SuSE has out there _right_n
>>>You seem to have missed the same point Gerry did:
Yeah, I guess I did, BUT, SuSE has *NOT* issued an 'official'
RPM to update the related packages, either, so what I gave
you is what SuSE has out there _right_now_. If it's not the
particular version of 'uname' that you were hoping for, then
yo
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 11:18:11 EDT
mike ledoux said:
>Knowing that most distributions *don't* ship with 2.0.12, and
>don't provide a customized version, indicates to me that this new
>'functionality' is nearly useless.
True, I guess 'NEED' was too strong. But if people are going
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:40:19 EDT
"Bayard R. Coolidge" said:
We're trying to determine what each distro reports as
the "--operating-system" name.
>SuSE 8.0Pro on my system 'dualie' (Asus A7M266-D, 2xMP1800+)
>
>uname --all
>Linux dualie 2.4.18 #12 SMP Wed Aug 7 13:37:2
I could do that too.
On 16 Aug 2002 at 10:26, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:11:57 EDT
> "Jerry Feldman" said:
>
> >I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading.
>
> Well, you could also just grab the latest sh-utils package and
>>> We're trying to determine what each distro reports as
>>> the "--operating-system" name.
SuSE 8.0Pro on my system 'dualie' (Asus A7M266-D, 2xMP1800+)
uname --all
Linux dualie 2.4.18 #12 SMP Wed Aug 7 13:37:25 EDT 2002 i686 unknown
SuSE 7.3Pro on my system 'fireworks' (Asus P2L97DS, 2x PII@3
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 10:11:57 EDT
"Jerry Feldman" said:
>I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading.
Well, you could also just grab the latest sh-utils package and
compile/install it on your system and test it out.
Or, better yet, create a SuSE pack
I should probably query SuSE and find out when they will be upgrading.
On 16 Aug 2002 at 10:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:46:14 EDT
> "Jerry Feldman" said:
>
> >That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates.
>
> Yes, I'm aware of that,
In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 07:46:14 EDT
"Jerry Feldman" said:
>That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates.
Yes, I'm aware of that, but the discussion is about what does the
latest version of uname, which is 2.0.12, report on various
distributions. We're trying to
That's what is supplied on SuSE 8.0 with the latest updates.
On 15 Aug 2002 at 16:52, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:45:09 EDT
> "Jerry Feldman" said:
>
> >And SuSE:
> >gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a
> >Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i68
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 15:45:09 EDT
"Jerry Feldman" said:
>And SuSE:
>gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a
>Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i686 unknown
That's the old version of uname. You need to upgrade to 2.0.12 of
sh-utils.
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
It may loo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
>
> In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:56:20 EDT
> "Derek D. Martin" said:
>
> >The uname command is part of the sh-utils package, not util-linux. :)
>
> Unless your on Debian, in w
And SuSE:
gaf@gaf-lap:~> uname -a
Linux gaf-lap 2.4.18-4GB #1 Wed Mar 27 13:57:05 UTC 2002 i686 unknown
On 15 Aug 2002 at 15:29, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:54:16 EDT
> "Derek D. Martin" said:
>
> >While I very much agree with you, I'm a bit surprised t
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:56:20 EDT
"Derek D. Martin" said:
>The uname command is part of the sh-utils package, not util-linux. :)
Unless your on Debian, in which case it's shellutils :)
--
Seeya,
Paul
--
It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
but I'm
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 14:54:16 EDT
"Derek D. Martin" said:
>While I very much agree with you, I'm a bit surprised to hear you
>argue this. The GNU Project seems to be giving you what you've always
>wanted: a way for uname to identify what distribution you're using,
>distinct from
...and from my very current Debian "testing" box we get:
> shrapnel:~/.mail/inbox 744---> uname --version
> uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12
> Written by David MacKenzie.
>
> Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. Ther
"Derek D. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
kindly pointed out how stupid I am - I mean, I knew I
was ignorant, but didn't realize I was that bad...
FWIW, SuSE 8.0 has sh-utils-2.0-219
and SuSE 7.3 has sh-utils-2.0-106
and I don't believe that there have been any recent updates.
But, then, I could be w
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, Bayard R. Coolidge hath spake thusly:
> Depending on what distro you have, you might want to check
> its history to see what version of util-linux stuff you have
Er,
> # uname --version
> uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0
> Written b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
At some point hitherto, [EMAIL PROTECTED] hath spake thusly:
> Now, last I checked, Stallman wanted to call the "entire system" GNU/Linux
> because so much of the environment is built upon GNU software.
> However, in the context of 'uname' would "oper
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>>>
FWIW, I agree with you, Paul. But, I'd aleo like to gently
remind you that you prolly can get your hands on the sources
and edit them appropriately :-).
Depending on what distro you have, you might want to check
its history to see what version of util-linux stuff y
In a message dated: Thu, 15 Aug 2002 13:55:20 EDT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, at 1:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels
>> that changed the output of 'uname':
>>
>> client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version
>
On Thu, 15 Aug 2002, at 1:21pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels
> that changed the output of 'uname':
>
> client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version
> uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12
>
> pll@tater:~$ uname --version
>
Hi all,
Does anyone know what happened between the 2.4.18 and 2.4.19 kernels
that changed the output of 'uname':
client:/usr/src/linux# uname --version
uname (sh-utils) 2.0.12
pll@tater:~$ uname --version
uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11
yet:
Linux client
69 matches
Mail list logo
