on 16/11/2012 01:09 Dimitry Andric said the following: > And as I remarked in another reply, now that I have thought about it a > bit, I would much rather see this information moved to a sysctl or dmesg > line, than in uname. With the happy side effect that no existing uname > parsers would be confused! I would still like to have at least compiler's "base name" or type or something in uname. -- Andriy GaponReceived on Fri Nov 16 2012 - 06:34:24 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:32 UTC