Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1998 21:31:28 -0700 From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: dan@math.berkeley.edu (Dan Strick) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: linux software installation and uname Message-ID: <199811100431.VAA09963@mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199811100025.QAA04722@math.berkeley.edu> References: <199811100025.QAA04722@math.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > No, but in order to get the 'correct' behavior, I have to know which OS > > I need emulated so I can set the environment variable correctly. > > > > So, if I want to run SCO's Informix which uses uname (it does, BTW), I > > have to set 'ALT_UNAME' to "SCO". Then, I want to run StarOffice, so I > > have set 'ALT_UNAME' to "Linux", then I want to run the JDK, so I have > > to set 'ALT_UNAME' to "Solaris", or was it the Linux version that I was > > running? I don't remember if it was the Solaris version, or the Linux > > version? > > > > The point is that it's *NOT* transparent to the users, so the solution > > isn't any better than the initial problem, but it adds more bloat and > > more 'magic' solutions that are no better than editing shells scripts. > > So you wrap a small shell script around certain commands that require > special things in their environment. This is what I proposed, not hacking up the FreeBSD sources to have OS specific commands in them. Modifying uname when in fact the installation requires fixing is the better solution. Nate 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?199811100431.VAA09963>