lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2000]   [Mar]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: ver_linux script
On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 07:39:13PM +0200, Ville Herva wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 09, 2000 at 10:09:25AM -0500, you [Tim Coleman] claimed:
> > On Wed, Mar 08, 2000 at 06:35:18PM +0200, Ville Herva wrote:
> > >
> > > Perhaps "uname -a" in linux_ver script should changed to
> > > "cat /proc/version"?
> >
> > Or maybe uname should be changed to include the compiler?
> >
> > Just a thought
>
> Sounds good unless there are some kind of unix standard issues on what
> uname should return.

I'm not sure where that standard would be defined, but wouldn't
it be applicable in the "version" section?

i.e. in utsname, version could also contain the compiler information.

I also notice that sys/utsname.h references a POSIX standard:
POSIX Standard: 4.4 System Identification <sys/utsname.h>

Since I do not have access to a copy of the POSIX standard that
I know of, I don't know what that standard specifies exactly.

Comments? Does anybody know?

Tim
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
tim@beastor.mine.nu
Software Developer/Systems Administrator/RDBMS Specialist/Linux Advocate
University of Waterloo Honours Co-op Combinatorics & Optimization
finger tim@beastor.mine.nu for PGP public key ID 0xCB7C7974
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:56    [W:7.447 / U:0.028 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site