Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1998 21:50:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Doug Rabson <dfr@nlsystems.com> To: Sren Schmidt <sos@freebsd.dk> Cc: Jacques Vidrine <n@nectar.com>, sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu, nate@mt.sri.com, kkennawa@physics.adelaide.edu.au, dnelson@emsphone.com, rivers@dignus.com, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: linux software installation and uname Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.01.9811102149260.359-100000@herring.nlsystems.com> In-Reply-To: <199811102044.VAA00261@freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 10 Nov 1998, Sren Schmidt wrote: > It seems Jacques Vidrine wrote: > > > > Why would we not put a real linux uname(1) in /compat/linux/usr/bin? > > This is an emulation issue. Why impact the BSD userland sources? > > Hear hear!! > > > The path of munging BSD so that it looks like some other OS leads > > to just throwing out our userland and using some Linux distribution... > > or worse yet, an attempt to become some chameleon OS such as AIX. > > > > On 9 November 1998 Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> wrote: > > [snip] > > > There is a point of "diminishing returns" with respect to > > > maintain a large collection of scripts, particularly when a 4 line > > > change to uname(1) will accommodate the majority of the vendor supplied > > > scripts. > > Excuse me, but this is an emulation thing, and the soultion must be > put into the emulator or the compat stuff, no matter how few lines > it takes. Putting it into "generic" FreeBSD is bad engineering. I imagine that the install script is run by /bin/sh, not /compat/linux/bin/sh so it will get the regular /usr/bin/uname whatever is present in /compat/linux/usr/bin. -- Doug Rabson Mail: dfr@nlsystems.com Nonlinear Systems Ltd. Phone: +44 181 951 1891 Fax: +44 181 381 1039 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?Pine.BSF.4.01.9811102149260.359-100000>