[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH] arch: new program

From: Karel Zak
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arch: new program
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2007 23:43:53 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.11

On Wed, Jun 06, 2007 at 09:45:09PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Jim Meyering <address@hidden> writes:
> >
> >> I suppose arch should not be used in new scripts, but that's just
> >> a gut feeling.  If so, documentation should make it clear.
> >
> > I agree that the documentation should advise people to use uname and
> > to avoid arch.  'uname' is standardized, but 'arch' is not.  The Sun
> > documentation already advises people not to use 'arch'.
> >
> > One other thing.  This implementation of 'arch' is incompatible with
> > Solaris.  Solaris 'arch' uses the following algorithm:
> >
> >    If "uname -p" outputs "sun4", output "sun4"; otherwise output
> >    whatever "uname -m" returns.
> >
> > Also, Solaris 'arch' accepts a "-k" option that causes "arch" to
> > behave just like "uname -m".
> >
> > Also, Solaris 'arch' accepts an optional operand that causes it to
> > silently exit with status 0 if "arch" would have printed that operand,
> > 1 otherwise.
> Ouch.  This makes it look like coreutils should not install arch
> by default.  What do you think of a new configure-time option that
> would list extra programs like arch that you'd like to install?
> I would probably add "su" to the list, since most installers don't
> want the version from coreutils.

It would be nice to have:

    .. to enable programs that aren't installed by default
    (e.g su, arch)

    .. to disable programs that are installed by default
    (for example RHEL/FC doesn't use hostname, uptime and kill from

My plan is use something like this for a next util-linux release,
because upstream has almost always different point of view that end

> I'm not too interested in making arch compatible with the Solaris one,

I agree :-)

> so there should probably be some fail-safe to force installation of
> "arch" on a Solaris system.  The goal was simply to pull in the one
> from the util-linux package.

The goal is share the uname code with arch rather than duplicate that
on two places.

> I hate to say it, after Karel has done most of the work, but I suppose
> simply not adding it to coreutils should be considered an option, too.

Ah yes, this is possible too.


 Karel Zak  <address@hidden>

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]