From owner-freebsd-hackers  Sat Oct 11 00:20:38 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id AAA05327
          for hackers-outgoing; Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:20:38 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (ppp20.portal.net.au [202.12.71.120])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id AAA05321;
          Sat, 11 Oct 1997 00:20:28 -0700 (PDT)
          (envelope-from mike@word.smith.net.au)
Received: from word.smith.net.au (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by word.smith.net.au (8.8.7/8.8.5) with ESMTP id QAA00666;
	Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:47:21 +0930 (CST)
Message-Id: <199710110717.QAA00666@word.smith.net.au>
X-Mailer: exmh version 2.0zeta 7/24/97
To: richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk)
cc: freebsd-emulation@freefall.FreeBSD.org,
        freebsd-hackers@freefall.FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 10 Oct 1997 07:54:17 -1000."
             <199710101754.HAA17182@pegasus.com> 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 1997 16:47:18 +0930
From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by hub.freebsd.org id AAA05322
Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>
> The goal is to run software.  If the emulation is incomplete then
> chances are some things won't run -- which means the emulator fails it's
> primary task.
> 
> If you find the `Linux' report to be that hideous then make the output
> configurable.  But the default action should be as close to what Linux
> produces as possible.
> 
> If Linux software doesn't run, for any reason, then the emulator has failed.

This is the issue of "bug comptatability".  Let us evaluate the 
situation realistically, rather than wandering off ranting at the stars.

We have had Linux ABI emulation for quite some time now (two, three 
years?).  In that time there have been many improvements from many 
quarters, leading to a very useful feature set.  There have also been a 
considerable number of problem reports, many of which have lead to 
fixes.

In all those years, this is the first time that a problem has surfaced 
with the return value from the uname() call.  It was also trivially 
resolved in a positive fashion after minor discussion with the software 
vendor.

By my reading of this, there is no problem.

mike