Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Date:	Mon, 6 Aug 2001 15:25:02 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2
Message-ID:	<20010806152502.A23782@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<3B6E5DC8 DOT 21360E0F AT sibbald DOT com> <997090077 DOT 7672 DOT 14 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3B6E7F7D DOT F9848EF0 AT sibbald DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.2.5i
In-Reply-To:	<3B6E7F7D.F9848EF0@sibbald.com>; from kern@sibbald.com on Mon, Aug 06, 2001 at 01:29:01PM +0200

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                                mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Red Hat, Inc.

--
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/

- Raw text -