Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 14:48:50 +0300 From: Kostik Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> To: Scott Long <scottl@samsco.org> Cc: amd64@freebsd.org, arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: uname -m/-p for compat32 binaries Message-ID: <20100720114850.GE2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> In-Reply-To: <DDEEE995-FDAC-444B-B2B9-558CF6B6AC1A@samsco.org> References: <20100719213054.GB2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <BC1D5EFF-3B2E-4358-A8E9-29B3CCD25DE4@samsco.org> <20100719215746.GC2381@deviant.kiev.zoral.com.ua> <DDEEE995-FDAC-444B-B2B9-558CF6B6AC1A@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--NfRCDefLLAVdwZEC Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 04:17:16PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > Just checked, and I was a little off. We don't actually do this in the > kernel, we override it in the environment UNAME_ variables. All of our > software that wants to look at the machine arch uses uname to do it, > so we go that route. That way, we're not really lying to anything that > wants to get the definitive answer from the hw.machine architecture. > I can't defend it any further than that, maybe Peter or Paul or John > can comment on it. I personally don't see one way as being better than > the other, as they both have potential problems. As you noted in your > previous email, it's an easy change that could have been done long ago; > maybe the fact that it hasn't points to a good reason not to. I know about environment variables affecting uname output, and use it if possible. Unfortunately, there are some situations where environment not propagated to the childs, or explicitely cleaned, e.g. sudo without -E. Or, it is hard to establish environment at the first place. I plan to commit it tomorrow. >=20 >=20 > Scott >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Jul 19, 2010, at 3:57 PM, Kostik Belousov wrote: >=20 > > On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:31PM -0600, Scott Long wrote: > >> We do something similar at yahoo, and it's code that we're working > >> on packaging up to put back into FreeBSD. I don't know how your code > >> differs from ours, and I obviously cannot stop you from committing > >> yours, but you're welcome to look at our code. > > There is obviously no rush to commit this snippet, and I obviously would > > abstain if this would make larger integration harder. > >=20 > > Where to look ? Or should I just sit and wait ? >=20 --NfRCDefLLAVdwZEC Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkxFjSEACgkQC3+MBN1Mb4iyCACgxnwhT9FJ7RCrhSY68etBSx3i NSIAnRz/niqDmFWHCOD9bo+WEF5J3CXj =vtyI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --NfRCDefLLAVdwZEC--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100720114850.GE2381>