Giuseppe Scrivano wrote: > Jim Meyering <j...@meyering.net> writes: > >>> What about a new switch to `arch'? >> >> Sorry, no. >> arch is not installed by default, for portability reasons. > > Does uname have the same problem? It already has a "--processor" > option and IMHO it would be better to get similar information using > the same tool.
It's similar. There are enough vendor-supplied variants of uname that many installers opt not to install the one from coreutils. > By the way, under GNU/Linux `uname --processor' returns "unknown". Do > you think it is a good idea to read this information from "/proc"? Let's not go there ;-) This has been proposed and rejected many times over the years.
