From: UnixOS2 Archive To: "UnixOS2 Archive" Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 04:40:34 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [UnixOS2_Archive] No. 361 ************************************************** Saturday 02 November 2002 Number 361 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 uname standards conformance : Thomas Hoffmann 2 uname standards conformance : Thomas Hoffmann 3 Re: uname standards conformance : John Poltorak 4 Re: uname standards conformance : John Poltorak **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:32:04 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: uname standards conformance I tried uname from one of the unixos2 packages: >uname.exe --version uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0 written by David MacKenzie. which gives for "uname -a": >uname -a OS/2 zappa.sax.de 2 2.45 i386 unknown Then I tried uname from the GNU shell utils package. This is >uname.exe --version uname - GNU sh-utils 1.12 This gives for "uname-a": >uname -a OS/2 zappa.sax.de 2 2.45 i386 The 1.12 uname does not know the -p option, the 2.0 version does know it and returns "unknown". Both return "i386" for -m. Now the (2.0) info page says `-m' `--machine' Print the machine (hardware) type. `-p' `--processor' Print the machine's processor type So, under unixos2 "i386" is "the machine", and the processor is "unknown": this does not conform too well to the Linux example from said info page: .... If multiple options or `-a' are given, the selected information is printed in this order: SYSNAME NODENAME RELEASE OSVERSION MACHINE The OSVERSION, at least, may well be multiple words. For example: uname -a => Linux hayley 1.0.4 #3 Thu May 12 18:06:34 1994 i486 ..... Is there any Posix or whatever standard about this? **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sun, 03 Nov 2002 19:32:04 +0100 From: Thomas Hoffmann Subject: uname standards conformance I tried uname from one of the unixos2 packages: >uname.exe --version uname (GNU sh-utils) 2.0 written by David MacKenzie. which gives for "uname -a": >uname -a OS/2 zappa.sax.de 2 2.45 i386 unknown Then I tried uname from the GNU shell utils package. This is >uname.exe --version uname - GNU sh-utils 1.12 This gives for "uname-a": >uname -a OS/2 zappa.sax.de 2 2.45 i386 The 1.12 uname does not know the -p option, the 2.0 version does know it and returns "unknown". Both return "i386" for -m. Now the (2.0) info page says `-m' `--machine' Print the machine (hardware) type. `-p' `--processor' Print the machine's processor type So, under unixos2 "i386" is "the machine", and the processor is "unknown": this does not conform too well to the Linux example from said info page: .... If multiple options or `-a' are given, the selected information is printed in this order: SYSNAME NODENAME RELEASE OSVERSION MACHINE The OSVERSION, at least, may well be multiple words. For example: uname -a => Linux hayley 1.0.4 #3 Thu May 12 18:06:34 1994 i486 ..... Is there any Posix or whatever standard about this? **= Email 3 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:16:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: uname standards conformance On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:32:04PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > Is there any Posix or whatever standard about this? There is something called The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 from The Open Group :- http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcuix.html I don't know how widely this is accepted, but this is what it specifies for uname() :- OPTIONS The uname utility supports the XBD specification, Utility Syntax Guidelines . The following options are supported: -a Behave as though all of the options -mnrsv were specified. -m Write the name of the hardware type on which the system is running to standard output. -n Write the name of this node within an implementation-dependent communications network. -r Write the current release level of the operating system implementation. -s Write the name of the implementation of the operating system. -v Write the current version level of this release of the operating system implementation. If no options are specified, the uname utility will write the operating system name, as if the -s option had been specified. -- John **= Email 4 ==========================** Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 20:16:14 +0000 From: John Poltorak Subject: Re: uname standards conformance On Sun, Nov 03, 2002 at 07:32:04PM +0100, Thomas Hoffmann wrote: > Is there any Posix or whatever standard about this? There is something called The Single UNIX Specification, Version 2 from The Open Group :- http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/7908799/xcuix.html I don't know how widely this is accepted, but this is what it specifies for uname() :- OPTIONS The uname utility supports the XBD specification, Utility Syntax Guidelines . The following options are supported: -a Behave as though all of the options -mnrsv were specified. -m Write the name of the hardware type on which the system is running to standard output. -n Write the name of this node within an implementation-dependent communications network. -r Write the current release level of the operating system implementation. -s Write the name of the implementation of the operating system. -v Write the current version level of this release of the operating system implementation. If no options are specified, the uname utility will write the operating system name, as if the -s option had been specified. -- John