>I think the point was that there already *is* a command named lsb- >release (try it- it's there in Fedora 2 at least).
Yup, on RH and related (Fedora) releases it's been around since a post-release patch to 7.3. >I for one don't see any reason to add a 'uname -d' if lsb-release is >already specified. I imagine that it's easier for utilities to >check for the existence of the lsb-release executable than it is to >check for uname's support of a -d flag. The only concern is that most systems don't have it installed; it takes either a conscious request by the sysadmin or installation of a package that has a dependency on it, making it a far less general solution than convincing uname to return more info. Which I'm not sure I advocate - do we really want to encourage more ways in which software can be "distro specific"? _______________________________________________ Bug-coreutils mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-coreutils
