Date: Fri, 10 Oct 1997 12:33:43 +0930 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: Thomas David Rivers <rivers@dignus.com> Cc: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: LINUX emulation and uname(3). Message-ID: <199710100303.MAA00470@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 09 Oct 1997 18:27:47 -0400." <199710092227.SAA07605@lakes.dignus.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This question should have been posted on the -emulation list, to where it has been moved. > I have a program, written for Linux, that uses the uname() information > as part of its license check... > > Unfortunately, the check fails... the company indicates that the > failure is due to incorrect uname() information. > > So - does the uname() call under Linux emulation claim to be a LINUX > box? - or - does it claim to be a FreeBSD box... Does the application make a uname() call, or does it attempt to run a 'uname' executable? > Which should it do? Seems to me, for accurate Linux emulation, it should > claim to be Linux... Do you see a console message saying: linux_emul(%d): olduname() not supported ? If not, the Linux uname will return the contents of the kern.ostype sysctl. > - Opinions? - I am not sure that I agree that uname() should claim to be Linux when we're not. Then again, perhaps we should use something more subtle to indicate that we're a FreeBSD system. Why is this product so paranoid? mike
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199710100303.MAA00470>