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
Message-ID:	<3B6EBD78.A9991782@sibbald.com>
Date:	Mon, 06 Aug 2001 17:53:28 +0200
From:	Kern Sibbald <kern AT sibbald DOT com>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Win98; U)
X-Accept-Language:	en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	egor duda <cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>, cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Cygwin version 1.3.2
References:	<3B6E5DC8 DOT 21360E0F AT sibbald DOT com>
	<997090077 DOT 7672 DOT 14 DOT camel AT lifelesswks> <3B6E7F7D DOT F9848EF0 AT sibbald DOT com>
	<20010806152555 DOT A17236 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de> <3B6EA205 DOT FD4FEF86 AT sibbald DOT com> <4128484949 DOT 20010806181325 AT logos-m DOT ru>

Hello,

Well, there are quite a few "fields" on the full uname output
line. The most interesting for me as a developer supporting
multiple platforms are:

 1. Operating System Name (field one -- uname -s)
 2. Operating System Release (field 3 -- uname -r)

and much less

 3. Operating System Version (starts in field 4 -- uname -v)

I think of Cygwin as the Operating System Name and
the dll version (1.3.2) as the Operating System Release.

The extra information you supply seem to me best in the Operating
System Version field.  So, instead of:

  CYGWIN_98-4.10 MINIMATOU 1.3.2(0.39/3/2) 2001-05-20 23:28 i586
unknown

I would suggest something like:

  CYGWIN MINIMATOU 1.3.2 (0.39/3/2)-Win98-4.10 2001-05-20 23:28 i586
unknown

so uname -s would print CYGWIN
   uname -r             1.3.2
   uname -v             (0.39/3/2)-Win98-4.10 2001-05-20 23:28

This would allow easy identification of the Operating System
and the release and conforms more closely to what the "mainstream"
Unix systems do (IMO).  Aesthetically, I would prefer 
that the OS name be Cygwin rather than CYGWIN, but that is 
not a desirable change as it would break a lot of existing 
software, whereas, my other suggested changes "should" be 
compatible.

As I mentioned previously, this isn't a hot subject for me, just
a thought.

Best regards,

Kern  

  

egor duda wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Monday, 06 August, 2001 Kern Sibbald kern AT sibbald DOT com wrote:
> 
> KS> I didn't want to imply that it was not possible to strip
> KS> off the part I "object" to, just that it would make
> KS> everyone's life a bit easier (except perhaps
> KS> the Cygwin programmers) if the Operating System name
> KS> were a bit simpler. No big deal though.
> 
> but cygwin+nt _is_ a different platform from cygwin+w9x. i suppose
> this difference should be shown by uname. _where_ you want it to be?
> in release? or in machine type?
> 
> Egor.            mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

--
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 -