On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:30:38PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 10:16:41PM -0700, Laurent de Segur wrote:
> >
> > I wrote in a previous email to express my surprise about getting a
> > '-powerpc' extension at the end of the version returned by the command
>
> -pmac perhaps
On Fri, 14 Sep 2001, Laurent de Segur wrote:
> IMHO, uname is not correctly implemented under Linux (version-wise for
> ports and machine/processor-wise in general.)
Again, the EXTRAVERSION=powerpc in the kernel-image-* packages has nothing
to do with uname implementation or Linux platform ports.
rnel image, which I think should not be
> done. I understand now why such a decision was made, as it can't be
> determine at runtime by entering a simple 'uname -p'.
thats not the problem, debian packages only distinguish processer
archetecture. so there is no way to have kerne
e about getting a
'-powerpc' extension at the end of the version returned by the command
'uname -r' with a pre-compiled kernel image, which I think should not be
done. I understand now why such a decision was made, as it can't be
determine at runtime by entering a
On Fri, Sep 14, 2001 at 01:15:15PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote:
> Laurent de Segur wrote:
>
> > Entering 'uname -p' should return 'ppc' but returns 'unknow' running
> > 2.4.8-powerpc with debian/woody.
>
> What makes you think it should
Laurent de Segur wrote:
> Entering 'uname -p' should return 'ppc' but returns 'unknow' running
> 2.4.8-powerpc with debian/woody.
What makes you think it should return ppc (uname -m does) ?
I just tried it on a sparc64 and an i686 system and both returned unk
Hi,
Entering 'uname -p' should return 'ppc' but returns 'unknow' running
2.4.8-powerpc with debian/woody.
The uname --version returns >uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0.11
Any clues on what could be wrong?
Laurent
7 matches
Mail list logo
