On 2013-09-18 04:18, Laurent Bercot wrote:
In 2000, I have built a server without GNU software just to contradict RMS,
who was insisting that I should call my system GNU/Linux instead of Linux.
Don't make me build a server without GNU *and* without Busybox just to
contradict you. ;)
I'd be
Von: Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. September 2013 05:48
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote:
- strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);
+ strcpy(uname_info.os,
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+ GNU/
+#endif
+ Linux);
I'd agree that most BusyBox-based
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Rich Felker dal...@aerifal.cx wrote:
See attached.
What is the point of such a change?
People (presumably) use uname -o to determine whether
the OS is Linux, or BSD, or other Unix.
On Fedora, it says GNU/Linux. I suspect many other distros have the same.
My
On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 04:18:59PM +0200, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 12:56 AM, Rich Felker dal...@aerifal.cx wrote:
See attached.
What is the point of such a change?
People (presumably) use uname -o to determine whether
the OS is Linux, or BSD, or other Unix.
On
But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the
userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion.
How do you know for sure ?
Busybox isn't the only alternative userspace. There are other several,
if lesser-known, projects that provide low-level userspace tools.
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 05:29:48PM +0800, ChenQi wrote:
On 09/18/2013 04:47 PM, Pere wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:18 AM, Laurent Bercot
ska-dietl...@skarnet.org wrote:
But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the
userspace, regardless of the C library in my
On 2013-09-18 04:18, Laurent Bercot wrote:
But I'd call such a system BusyBox/Linux instead, since BusyBox is the
userspace, regardless of the C library in my opinion.
How do you know for sure ?
As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname.
If the uname is provided by BusyBox, the
How do you know for sure ?
As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname.
That would only prove that the uname implementation is Busybox's. That
wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system.
Running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox system (that is, configuring
BusyBox to build only the
On 2013-09-18 12:38, Laurent Bercot wrote:
How do you know for sure ?
As Pere said, because this is BusyBox uname.
That would only prove that the uname implementation is Busybox's. That
wouldn't say anything about the rest of the system.
Anyone running BusyBox uname on a non-BusyBox
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote:
- strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);
+ strcpy(uname_info.os,
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote:
- strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);
+ strcpy(uname_info.os,
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+ GNU/
+#endif
+ Linux);
I'd agree that most BusyBox-based
On Wednesday 18 September 2013 23:19:51 Pere wrote:
On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Aaro Koskinen aaro.koski...@iki.fi wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 11:47:55PM -0400, Patrick 'P. J.' McDermott wrote:
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote:
- strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);
See attached.
diff --git a/coreutils/uname.c b/coreutils/uname.c
index b96d76b..2568962 100644
--- a/coreutils/uname.c
+++ b/coreutils/uname.c
@@ -139,7 +139,11 @@ int uname_main(int argc UNUSED_PARAM, char **argv)
#endif
strcpy(uname_info.processor, unknown_str);
On 2013-09-17 18:56, Rich Felker wrote:
- strcpy(uname_info.os, GNU/Linux);
+ strcpy(uname_info.os,
+#ifdef __GLIBC__
+ GNU/
+#endif
+ Linux);
I'd agree that most BusyBox-based systems can hardly be called
GNU/Linux, even with glibc. It seems inappropriate
14 matches
Mail list logo