On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 22:16, Taco Hoekwater wrote: >> Maybe "bash --version" would be more reliable than uname? > > If you do something like that, then you may as well do > > $ file /bin/ls
Not too useful either ... > bash --version GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0) Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > file /bin/ls /bin/ls: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures /bin/ls (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 /bin/ls (for architecture i386): Mach-O executable i386 However ... this discussion was already being held long ago ... there is no reason why luatex could not be as smart as "bash --version" is and aware of the architecture it was compiled for (that is not necessary the platform it is running on; an obvious case being i386 luatex running on 64-bit Mas OS X for example). Somebody would have to write some simple code to check for that though. Mojca ___________________________________________________________________________________ If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki! maillist : [email protected] / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context webpage : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net archive : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/ wiki : http://contextgarden.net ___________________________________________________________________________________
