Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 12:31:33 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard), nate@mt.sri.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: linux software installation and uname Message-ID: <199811091931.MAA05779@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199811091855.KAA10694@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> References: <7734.910632801@time.cdrom.com> <199811091855.KAA10694@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Actually, you didn't. Stick a uname in the appropriate /compat/linux > > > directory and it will be called (and return Linux) which doesn't bloat > > > FreeBSD's code with Linux-centric bits. > > > > Ah, that's another good point. :-) > > > > The install script on the cdrom had hardcoded tests for > /usr/bin/uname and /bin/uname. > > If we every get to the emulation of Digital Unix and Solaris > where we have /compat/linux, /compat/digital, /compat/solaris, > etc., then we need several versions of uname. Now, we're talking > about bloat. Actually, the code would be *much* shorter than modifying uname for each platform, since uname on each platform has very different functionality and/or flags. So, bloat would be reduced, not increased. Complexity would also be limited to the code/script that is for each OS, therefore reducing maintenance on other platforms. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811091931.MAA05779>