[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