Version & Distribution identification

Anthony Towns aj at azure.humbug.org.au
Tue May 23 20:37:01 PDT 2000


On Wed, May 24, 2000 at 01:06:48PM +1000, cyeoh at linuxcare.com.au wrote:
> >> Is it necessary to also specify a C library api for the above?
> >Adding a binary in /bin bloats the root partition needlessly (we're
> >talking at least, what, 3k these days for nop.c?), pollutes a namespace
> >it doesn't need to, and is generally just nuts.
> For the type of systems that the LSB is aimed at, is this really a big
> issue?

"the type of systems" ? Linux systems aren't just for the desktop...

> Running `lsb_release -i' would be a whole lot easier than searching
> around for /etc/debian_version, /etc/redhat-release, /etc/SuSe-release
> etc...

So would be parsing /etc/lsb-version as was being discussed
earlier. For that matter, so would be running /usr/bin/lsb_release, or
/usr/lib/lsb/bin/release. Parsing a file strikes me as easier to handle
than parsing the output of a command, in particular.

Note that the comparison to uname doesn't really apply, since C programs
have a uname() system call they can make.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 350 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/lsb-discuss/attachments/20000524/ac92a0d4/attachment.pgp 


More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list