[lsb-discuss] Re: New uname option to query exact OS distribution

Dr. Giovanni A. Orlando gorlando at futuretg.com
Mon Aug 23 12:24:28 PDT 2004


Nick Stoughton wrote:

>On Mon, 2004-08-23 at 07:46, Bruce Korb wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Linux-isms do not belong in POSIX.  LSB is the venue for the issue.
>>
>>Regards, Bruce
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed, and in the LSB, we have (as has been pointed out) lsb_release
>that gives all this stuff.
>
>  
>
>>lsb_release -a
>>LSB Version:    1.3
>>Distributor ID: RedHat
>>Description:    Red Hat Linux release 9 (Shrike)
>>Release:        9
>>Codename:       Shrike
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
Hi,

    I am not agree to introduce another command, like lsb_release -a.

    uname is sufficient.

    Changing actual -d with the OS release name: FTOSX, RedHat, will solve
    the matter.

Thanks,
Giovanni

>This is not a venue for invention ... widespread existing practice is
>what goes into the standard. If a large number of implementations (say,
>those based on some Open Source kernel and library) had uname -d
>behaving as you describe, it would be appropriate for the standards
>committees to consider it for inclusion. But WE DON"T INVENT STUFF HERE
>(sorry for shouting, but it is a critical point!).
>
>(OK, the LSB invented lsb_release, but they also supplied it to all the
>vendors)
>  
>


-- 

-- 

--
Check FT Websites ... 
http://www.futuretg.com  - ftp://ftp.futuretg.com
http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com
	http://www.FTLinuxCourse.com/Certification
http://www.rpmparadaise.org
http://GNULinuxUtilities.com
http://www.YourPersonalOperatingSystem.com

--





More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list