On 2019-01-30 13:29, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jan 30 20:01, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >> On Jan 30 19:53, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>> On Jan 30 11:47, Brian Inglis wrote: >>>> On 2019-01-30 10:31, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>> On Jan 30 09:11, Brian Inglis wrote: >>>>>> On 2019-01-30 07:03, Corinna Vinschen wrote: >>>>>>> I uploaded a new Cygwin test release 3.0.0-0.2 >>>>>>> It also changes the output of uname(2) for newly built applications. >>>>>>> Applications built so far (that includes uname(1) from coreutils) >>>>>>> will still print the old uname output. The new format allows for longer >>>>>>> strings. Compare: >>>>>>> Upcoming new uname content: >>>>>>> sysname: CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763 or CYGWIN_NT-10.0-17763-WOW64 >>>>>>> release: 3.0.0-335.x86_64 or 3.0.0-335.x86_64.snap >>>>>>> version: 2019-01-29 19:23 UTC Build time in UTC >>>>>> Re: "(*) It would really be nice not having to ask for these >>>>>> infos every time." may want to append >>>>>> HKLM/SOFTWARE/Microsoft/Windows NT/CurrentVersion/UBR to uname >>>>>> -s sysname to show the patch levels of installed builds, as >>>>>> there appears to be substantial differences between editions >>>>>> and service models. >>>> [...] >>>> $ cmd /c ver >>>> Microsoft Windows [Version 10.0.17134.523] >>>> and save asking those who don't know that, in case the revision >>>> makes a difference. Insider build feature sets bump the builds, >>>> and patch sets bump those revisions; up to base releases with >>>> known feature sets, builds, and revisions; then patch Tuesdays >>>> bump those revisions higher; so you can tell if installs are >>>> Insider, base, or patched. >>> I'm not so sure this makes sense from a Cygwin perspective. We're >>> interested in the major releases introducing changing and/or new >>> functionality. The monthly updates don't do that so they have no >>> meaning to us. >>> I just wonder if we should replace the build number with the ReleaseId >>> (i.e. 17763 vs. 1809), but that excludes the fast lane updates from >>> being visible. >> On second thought there's also the format discrepancy. Right now the >> new uname crates the version string like "10.0-17763", but it might be >> better to use "10.0.17763", replacing the dash with a dot, to follow >> more closely the OS layout. On third thought it seems prudent to >> print either >> 10.0-1809{-WOW64} >> or >> 10.0.17763.253{-WOW64} >> Hmm. The second form appears to make the most sense, actually. > But then again, no OS before W10 printed that info, e.g.: > Microsoft Windows [Version 6.3.9600] > We also have to make sure we're not breaking scripts, especially > autoconf etc., so on forth thought, I'll rather stick to the current > format.
I have zero problems with your previous considerations and decisions, but as some new features now also require WSL installed to work, should there be some such indication from uname e.g. +WSL where -WOW would appear? -- Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada This email may be disturbing to some readers as it contains too much technical detail. Reader discretion is advised. -- Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/ Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple