[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug in uname command
From: |
Eric Blake |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug in uname command |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 16:45:20 +0000 |
> > 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.
>
> But that will break scripts like mad... :(
Since POSIX doesn't document -p or -i, they are already non-portable
options. But you do have a point that just deleting the options
may have far-reaching effects...
--
Eric Blake
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, (continued)
- 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
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/16
Re: Possible bug in uname command,
Eric Blake <=