Re: adding "arch" (aka uname -m) to the coreutils

[Karel Zak]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 02:21:33PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Adding "arch" to the coreutils looks like it would be sensible, but if
> we go that route, it'll have to be done a little differently, since
> (following the GCS), the behavior of a program in this package does
> not change based on it name.  I.e., it'd have to be a separate binary,
> or maybe even a script.
> 
> For an example of how to do this in coreutils with a binary,
> look at ls.h, ls-dir.c and ls-vdir.c.  IMHO, for something

 Well, I'll prepare a new version.

> as fundamental as arch (seeing as how it's used in places like
> config.guess), it should be a binary, and not a script, but if
> you make a case for using a script, I'll keep an open mind :)

 Yes, it should be a binary.

> If you're interested in pursuing this, it'd be great if you could
> put together a complete patch, including these:
> 
>     ChangeLog entries (see other "New program" entries, e.g. runcon)
>     NEWS entry
>     AUTHORS update (add your name next to "arch", if you do this)
>     README update (add the new program name to the list)
>     documentation update (both man/arch.x and coreutils.texi)
>     new files, src/uname.h, uname-arch.c
>     {man,src}/Makefile.am
> 
> and for extra credit, also add a test script named, say, tests/misc/arch
> comparing its output with e.g., that from uname -m.  You can use
> tests/sample-test as a template.

 Ah... I see, "modesty & brevity" :-)

    Karel

-- 
 Karel Zak  <address@hidden>