Re: [LUG] uname

[Simon Waters <Simon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

paul wrote:
> Cheers,  Could this point to some sort of bug in the software,  if other
> people think so then I could let the developer know,

Okay uname is pretty simple.

The problem (if it may be called such) exists in the latest
alpha.

uname uses sysinfo and sysctl to look for processor values if
appropriate, these appear not to be set for non-Intel processors
so it defaults to "unknown".

I found a slightly suspect patch for uname that pulls the value
from /proc/cpuinfo vendor_id field, but I suspect a kernel
"bug", i.e. why does it define Intel correctly but not others?

It was also noted that the "-p"/"--processor" value is not part
of the uname standard, and so shouldn't be relied on.

Before reporting it again, might be worth understanding exactly
what is broken, as it may not be uname that is broken at all ;)

--
The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG
Mail majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe list" in the
message body to unsubscribe.