This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2
Thank you for your response as well as the one from
I realize that there are probably no "standards" on
this which is why I put it in quotes. However,
there is a pretty well defined usage.
Concerning the _98-4.10 and the NT issue: all different
flavors of Linux regardless of whether they are running
on an Intel, an s390, or ... print Linux for the
Operating System Name (field one). Here is what is printed
by various OSes for "uname -s":
It seems pretty clear which one is different from the rest.
The same can be said about the "uname -r".
Both the additions that you have made to the Operating System Name
(field one), and to the Operating System Release (field three)
would probably be better included in the Operating System Version
(begins in field four).
No, this is not very pressing or urgent, just a detail
with no large communtity impact. If it were my code,
I would classify it as a bug or a nonconfirmity rather
than a feature. I'd be happy to supply a patch and some
money (not lots), but I suspect the former wouldn't be
Robert Collins wrote:
> On 06 Aug 2001 11:05:12 +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Request for change:
> > 1. The first field which contains the OS name has additional
> > information
> > (i.e. _98-4.10). This complicates looking for CYGWIN compared
> > to the simplicity of the other systems.
> Well, cygwin on 98 is different in behaviour to cygwin on NT, and
> potentially different for every windows version. IIRC the _98-4.10 is
> reflecting the OS you are hosting cygwin on.
> > 2. The third field which contains the OS version has additional
> > information
> > (i.e. (0.39/3/2)). This also complicates looking for and using
> > the OS
> > version. In my case, this version is passed to Makefiles on the
> > command
> > line. As you can imagine, the parenthesis create problems.
> I don't know what this is used for, so I won't comment.
> > Please consider changing the Cygwin uname to conform more closely to
> > Unix "standards" by eliminating the additional information you place
> > on
> > the first and third fields.
> My .2c - your makefile is dangerous if it doesn't quote the output from
> uname -a anyway. (I could add a script to a user ~/bin called uname and
> have it's 1st and 3rd fields inserted into your Makefiles from the sound
> of it). As this is the 1st time anyone has asked for uname to be
> altered, there doesn't seem to be a great deal of concern about it.
> However: Chris Faylor is almost always happy to consider things, so I'd
> suggest you do the following:
> read the "contributing to cygwin" link from the home page. Unless you
> can *motivate* a developer, this _will not_ get done. The fastest way to
> motivate them is to
> 0) Submit a patch for the change you want done.
> 1) give them lots of money.
> 2) Show a large-scale impact on the community
> 3) Find a *bug* (as opposed to "feature").
> 4) Give me lots of money and I'll beg on your behalf.
> > I am not on your mailing list, so if you wish to respond to
> > me, please do so directly.
> > Best regards,
> > Kern
> > --
> > Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
> > Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
> > Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
> > FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html