This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2

Hello again,

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 :-)

Best regards,


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
> --
> Corinna Vinschen                  Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to
> Cygwin Developer                      
> Red Hat, Inc.

Unsubscribe info:
Bug reporting:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]