Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Touko Korpela wrote:
>>> Would it be possible to report Debian kernel version in uname
>>> output? Maybe it can be added to "kernel version" string, uname -v
>>> (now it's "#1 SMP Wed Aug 17 05:07:22 UTC 2011".
>>> This information is present in /proc/version and could be in uname too.
[...]
> I don't think uname(1) should be changed; it is supposed to report
> just what uname(2) does. We should change the behaviour of the
> latter, if anything.
Ah, ok. I admit my bias is towards not passing this information back
from uname(2), since application authors could be tempted to parse it
to provide Debian-specific behavior changes (for example, to work
around bugs using the Debian kernel version number instead of finding
some robust way to work around them that applies to other distros,
too). On the other hand, as a human-readable version identifier,
"linux-2.6 3.0.0-2 as compiled by Ben Hutchings on 2011-08-17
04:08:52" is more convenient than
Linux 3.0.0-1-amd64 #1 SMP Wed Aug 17 04:08:52 UTC 2011 x86_64 GNU/Linux
What is the underlying problem being solved? Is it that it is hard
when reporting bugs to tell the difference between the package version
and ABI version in order to provide the former?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110822184402.gf11...@elie.gateway.2wire.net
