On 9/17/05, Archaic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Sep 17, 2005 at 02:27:04PM +0100, Matthew Burgess wrote: > > > > Upstream have addressed the problems with `uname -a', `uname -i' and > > `uname -p' outputting 'unknown' for the processor type and hardware > > platform under Linux. I'd therefore like to take their patch and use it > > in LFS, so we're consistent with upstream. Note the following behaviours: > > While it may very well be something that sysctl should handle, > nevertheless, a mechanism is provided for the coreutils developers to > get this info. They just choose not to. I see no reason why we should > follow their lead when we already have a working implementation. >
Agreed. BTW, has the LFS patch been submitted upstream? If yes, what was the response? If no (or even if it was rejected before), maybe we can submit it in response to the thread Matt mentioned. -- Tushar Teredesai mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/~tushar/ -- http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/faq/ Unsubscribe: See the above information page
