On 07/08/2014 11:40 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
On Tue, 08.07.14 02:55, Kay Sievers (k...@vrfy.org) wrote:
On Tue, Jul 8, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson
<johan...@gmail.com> wrote:
---
src/hostname/hostnamectl.c | 20 +++++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/src/hostname/hostnamectl.c b/src/hostname/hostnamectl.c
index 267cd74..e164086 100644
--- a/src/hostname/hostnamectl.c
+++ b/src/hostname/hostnamectl.c
@@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ typedef struct StatusInfo {
char *pretty_hostname;
char *icon_name;
char *chassis;
+ char *environment;
char *kernel_name;
char *kernel_release;
char *os_pretty_name;
@@ -92,9 +93,11 @@ static void print_status_info(StatusInfo *i) {
printf("Transient hostname: %s\n", i->hostname);
printf(" Icon name: %s\n"
- " Chassis: %s\n",
+ " Chassis: %s\n"
+ " Environment: %s\n",
Shouldn't we possibly we find a word for "environment" which explains
itself a bit better? Environment we usually call the numerous
variables of a process or service.
Yeah, I don't really like "environment" as name for this either. This is
already used quite commonly in the environment variable sense, we
shouldn't redefine this in this comment.
I hardly call this redefinition but OK
I'd go for something generic like "description" or "comment" or so. Or
maybe "purpose". I think simply "description" appears to be the best
option for me.
This is very specific to deployment environment and to solve a very
specific long standing problem ( describe the operating environment ) so
the options can only be development,staging,production or if people see
the need to extend it further, it could include as well integration and
testing so an "description" ( which is even more generic than
environment) is a no go.
I think personally that "atmosphere" is the best synonym for
"environment" and should be used here since people are insisting using
something else then environment and are under the assumption that
administrators, developers and end users in in general will be confused
by this .
In the long run I think we should be working on an machine information
specificationand amongst other thing redefine "Computer Chassis" as
"System Enclosure" or even just drop it altogethersince it's usefulness
is limited to application which might behave differently based on the
"System Enclosure" type it's running on
For example M$ has 24 definition for "chassis" [1] while we have 5 (
vm,container,desktop,laptop,handset,server ) which we arguably could
simply reduce to 3 vm,container,hardware provided information ( limited
to the 29 bios standard only [2] ).
Anyway as I said in the long run I think we should be working on an
machine information specification
1. http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee156537.aspx
2.
http://www.dmtf.org/sites/default/files/standards/documents/DSP0134_2.8.0.pdf
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
