Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-25 Thread Ag. D. Hatzimanikas
On Tue, Apr 24, at 07:27 Matthew Burgess wrote: On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST: Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove a patch that provides a better end product. In my haste in

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Randy McMurchy
Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST: Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all in its current form, I'd like to drop it. Thoughts, comments? On the computer

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Robert Connolly
On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote: Matthew Burgess wrote these words on 04/20/07 16:55 CST: Given that all 3 books use different patches, it serves a purely cosmetic purpose (as far as I know), and upstream will not entertain the patch at all in its current form, I'd like

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Randy McMurchy
Robert Connolly wrote these words on 04/24/07 01:57 CST: On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote: What would it report without the patch? The pentium3 would become unknown. The patch sets uname -p. Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove a patch

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Randy McMurchy
Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST: Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove a patch that provides a better end product. In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please: s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/ --

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Matthew Burgess wrote: Hi, http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures still. Given that all 3 books

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Matthew Burgess
On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote: Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST: Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove a patch that provides a better end product. In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response,

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Greg Schafer
Robert Connolly wrote: On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote: On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this: Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686 pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux What would it report without the patch? The

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-24 Thread Bruce Dubbs
Greg Schafer wrote: Robert Connolly wrote: On Tuesday April 24 2007 02:50, Randy McMurchy wrote: On the computer I'm typing this message on, 'uname -a' reports this: Linux rmlscsi 2.6.14.3 #1 PREEMPT Sat Mar 25 07:47:39 CST 2006 i686 pentium3 i386 GNU/Linux What would it report without the

Re: [RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

2007-04-23 Thread Robert Connolly
On Friday April 20 2007 17:55, Matthew Burgess wrote: Hi, http://wiki.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/ticket/1990 proposes to have LFS use the same uname patch for Coreutils that HLFS uses. Note also that CLFS uses another version of the uname code that adds outputs for more architectures still.