On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 17:49 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > The man page still has '-p' and '-i', so that's at least a
> > documentation bug.
>
> The options are still accepted. They just don't produce the
> same output they did with a non-upstream patch.
>
> Change
On 4/25/23 17:56, Todd Zullinger wrote:
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 5:18 PM Todd Zullinger wrote:
A non-upstream patch was removed¹, which had kept the
long-deprecated uname -i and -p options.
¹ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coreutils/c/cd953e1
uname (1) says -i and -
Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 5:18 PM Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> A non-upstream patch was removed¹, which had kept the
>> long-deprecated uname -i and -p options.
>>
>> ¹ https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/coreutils/c/cd953e1
>
> uname (1) says -i and -p are valid options:
>
>
On Tue, Apr 25, 2023 at 5:18 PM Todd Zullinger wrote:
>
> Tom Horsley wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189656
> >
> > God knows how many scripts I have that use "uname -p" to get
> > the architecture name, but it now returns "unknown" instead of
> > "x86_64".
> >
> > I guess
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 18:58:45 -0400
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> One idea for tracking things down which aren't stored in a
> place which is reasonable to grep, is a uname script which
> overrides the default uname command
I was going to do that, but I found the old f37 uname command
runs fine on f38,
Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:49:08 -0400
> Todd Zullinger wrote:
>
>> s/uname -p/uname -m/
>>
>> shouldn't be too much of an issue.
>
> Right, just have to locate the 47,321 scripts which have some variation
> of that command in them. No problem at all :-).
I have good news a
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:49:08 -0400
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> s/uname -p/uname -m/
>
> shouldn't be too much of an issue.
Right, just have to locate the 47,321 scripts which have some variation
of that command in them. No problem at all :-).
___
users
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> The man page still has '-p' and '-i', so that's at least a
> documentation bug.
The options are still accepted. They just don't produce the
same output they did with a non-upstream patch.
Changed output across a major release isn't all that
unreasonable -- even if it
On Tue, 2023-04-25 at 17:18 -0400, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189656
> >
> > God knows how many scripts I have that use "uname -p" to get
> > the architecture name, but it now returns "unknown" instead of
> > "x86_64".
> >
> > I gue
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 17:18:21 -0400
Todd Zullinger wrote:
> It's not a bug. :)
That's a matter of opinion. :-(.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Con
Tom Horsley wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189656
>
> God knows how many scripts I have that use "uname -p" to get
> the architecture name, but it now returns "unknown" instead of
> "x86_64".
>
> I guess I'll replace uname with a script that invokes the real
> uname unless
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2189656
God knows how many scripts I have that use "uname -p" to get
the architecture name, but it now returns "unknown" instead of
"x86_64".
I guess I'll replace uname with a script that invokes the real
uname unless it is called with the -p option, th
12 matches
Mail list logo
