On Sun, 24 Aug 2003, Marc Aurele La France wrote: >> > > > This patch puts the kernel version in the banner, on Linux, and also whether >> > > > or not it's tainted (providing it's a sufficiently recent kernel). Thanks >> > > > to Mike Harris for this patch (slightly altered to remove RH_CUSTOM, etc). > >> > > Please do not accept this Linux-specific hack of a patch; I merged it to Debian, >> > > and Mike asked me not to send it upstream. > >> > Granted, as the patch stands. However, I don't mind doing the minimal >> > fixing up for inclusion, as this information would be extremely useful in >> > some logs. > >> Feel free to make it more generic and include it - that would definitely be cool. > >Done. I opted to use uname(2) instead. This doesn't say anything about >Linux's "tainted" thingie, but Mike can send a patch to include it if he, >or anyone else, feels that strongly about it.
Yeah, my original patch used uname(), but one of the critical pieces of information I wanted in the output was the kernel tainting flags, so I know if someone is running X under a tainted kernel or not. Also, uname output lacked some of the additional useful things the /proc/version file contains which are helpful in troubleshooting. I switched from uname to /proc/version to get the extra kernel build info and whatnot. Both of these things however are very non-generic and the code looks like crap... but it worked well. ;o) I wasn't sure what would be best to submit upstream other than using uname() as you've done, and possibly having conditionalized Linux specific code. That's still a bit ugly though. Once I update my rpms to the latest codebase, I'll see if I can brainstorm some way of getting the best of both worlds without it looking like a horrible mess. If not, it's best keeping the horrible mess as a vendor addition. Just as an additional note, I've tried to keep the convention of using Red Hat specific patches not intended to be submitted upstream in the form XFree86-a.b.c-redhat-foo.patch I made comments in our spec file to explain this, so people are clearer that these patches are not intended for upstream, but they're of course useable/modifyable/etc. to anyone who thinks they're useful, including the XFree86 project. Just trying to keep the ugly stuff buried. ;o) Thanks Marc. -- Mike A. Harris _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel
