Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 15:41:40 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> Cc: freebsd-bugs@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: bin/5826: uname '-p' option Message-ID: <199802232241.PAA03555@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199802232230.OAA28159@hub.freebsd.org> References: <199802232230.OAA28159@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The following reply was made to PR bin/5826; it has been noted by GNATS. > > From: Steve Price <sprice@hiwaay.net> > To: alk@East.Sun.COM, freebsd-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG > Cc: Subject: Re: bin/5826: uname '-p' option > Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1998 16:21:44 -0600 > > > I find many SVR4 scripts using the -p option of uname to get > > BSD uname -m functionality. Here's a one-line to provide > > script-compatibility. > > Actually I think the intent of the -p option is to show > the processor type of the machine, at least according to > a Digital box running OSF1. Maybe the attached patch > would be more appropriate? Hmm, all of the scripts I've used all return the same thing on the SUNS, irregardless of whether it's an IPC/SparcStattion/Ultra/Sparc 5, or what. This seems contradictory to the above statement, since all of the scripts expect to return 'i386' on all Solaris-PC platforms, irregardless of the CPU used. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199802232241.PAA03555>