Re: New uname option to query exact OS distribution

[Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando]

Nick Stoughton wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>  
>
> > Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX.  LSB is the venue for the issue.
> >
> > Regards, Bruce
> >    
>
> Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
> that gives all this stuff.
>
>  
>
> > lsb_release -a
> > LSB Version:    1.3
> > Distributor ID: RedHat
> > Description:    Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
> > Release:        9
> > Codename:       Shrike
> >    
>
>  
Hi,

   I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a.

   uname is sufficient.

   Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve
   the matter.

Thanks,
Giovanni

> This is not a venue for invention ... widespread existing practice is
> what goes into the standard. If a large number of implementations (say,
> those based on some Open Source kernel and library) had uname -d
> behaving as you describe, it would be appropriate for the standards
> committees to consider it for inclusion. But WE DON"T INVENT STUFF HERE
> (sorry for shouting, but it is a critical point!).
>
> (OK, the LSB invented lsb_release, but they also supplied it to all the
> vendors)
>  


--

--

--
Check FT Websites ... 
http://www.futuretg.com  - ftp://ftp.futuretg.com
http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com
        http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com/Certification
http://www.rpmparadaise.org
http://GNULinuxUtilities.com
http://www.YourPersonalOperatingSystem.com

--