[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug in uname command
From: |
Bob Proulx |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug in uname command |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 11:21:37 -0600 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> > I have often thought it would be better if on machines that could
> > not reasonably support those extra uname options that the options
> > be disabled entirely. Then instead of unknown the program would
> > report it as an invalid option.
>
> But that will break scripts like mad... :(
I don't think it will break scripts because legacy operating systems
don't support those options either. Therefore most people looking at
'uname -p' output will already be broken on many platforms. And on
platforms where it works it will continue to work.
address@hidden:~$ /bin/uname -p
/bin/uname: illegal option -- p
usage: uname [-amnrsvil] [-S nodename]
Neither does Debian. They disable the option because of the user
complaints.
Bob
- Possible bug in uname command, Asif Iqbal, Trumboo, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Eric Blake, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command,
Bob Proulx <=
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Jim Meyering, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/16