[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug in uname command
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug in uname command |
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:12:54 +0200 |
> > 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... :(
I don't think it will break scripts because legacy operating
systems don't support those options either.
If you consider GNU a legacy operating system, sure. Recall, GNU
coreutils is for GNU, not non-GNU systems.
How about those options get disabled if POSIXLY_CORRECT is defined
instead? That makes sense, and doesn't break scripts.
- 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, 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 <=
- 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