This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2
Thanks for the response. No, I admit I didn't look
at config.guess, but that was because I am really quite
familar with it. I use it, and I have my own equivalent
(somewhat simplified) in my aclocal.m4 which returns
a value which more generic and thus easier to use.
I didn't want to imply that it was not possible to strip
off the part I "object" to, just that it would make
everyone's life a bit easier (except perhaps
the Cygwin programmers) if the Operating System name
were a bit simpler. No big deal though.
Yes, I realized that Robert was joking. I wasn't :-)
Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to send it to your address as well.
> On Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:29:01PM +0200, Kern Sibbald wrote:
> > Hello,
> > Thank you for your response as well as the one from
> > Corinna Vinschen.
> > 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":
> > SunOS
> > OSF1
> > AIX
> > HP-UX
> > Linux
> > FreeBSD
> > NetBSD
> > OpenBSD
> > BSD/OS
> > SGI
> > CYGWIN_98-4.10
> > 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.
> Did you look into the config.guess file as I suggested?
> It's not only Cygwin which has different contents in these
> fields. Nevertheless config.guess finds that a host is
> running Cygwin reliably ... just look into the script.
> > than a feature. I'd be happy to supply a patch and some
> > money (not lots), but I suspect the former wouldn't be
> > excepted.
> Sounds as if you didn't take that as a joke. It was.
> Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org
> Red Hat, Inc.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html