jg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: > Le 13 juin 05 � 22:39, Martin Costabel a �crit : >> jg wrote: >> >>> you were right , uname path was broken , but even after fixing >>> this (which uname send the correct path now) the problem remains >>> the same , >> >> How did you fix it? Are you sure that configure sees the same uname >> as you when you run which uname? The only safe way is to remove the >> broken uname binary. > > i moved /usr/local/bin/uname to /usr/local/bin/Gnuname and whereis > uname returns the /usr/bin/uname again witch seems to be correct > when verifying > > /usr/local/bin/Gnuname --version (the moved one) gives me 5.2.1 from > gnu coreutil (that seems logical) > but > /usr/bin/uname --version returns the same ! > (i accessed the bins with the direct path)
The problem isn't the *version* of uname, it's the *results* they each return. Compare the output with -a instead of --version. dan -- Daniel Macks [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.netspace.org/~dmacks ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: NEC IT Guy Games. How far can you shotput a projector? How fast can you ride your desk chair down the office luge track? If you want to score the big prize, get to know the little guy. Play to win an NEC 61" plasma display: http://www.necitguy.com/?r=20 _______________________________________________ Fink-beginners mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-beginners
