[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 09:59:42 -0600 |
|
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.9i |
Paul Eggert wrote:
> That's been discussed, but it sounds like a can of worms.
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.
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 <=
- 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, 2005/09/14
- 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