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
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Mar 15 2000 - 21:00:16 EST