uname output ?

pll at lanminds.com pll at lanminds.com
Fri Aug 16 14:02:31 EDT 2002


In a message dated: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 13:41:50 EDT
mike ledoux said:

>Is this 2.0.12 version GNU sh-utils, or something else?  I noticed that
>in your output it reported itself as '(sh-utils)', where the GNU versions
>report themselves as '(GNU sh-utils)'.  Looking on ftp.gnu.org, the latest
>*released* sh-utils is still sh-utils-2.0.tar.gz, dated 15 Aug 1999.
>According to http://www.gnu.org/software/shellutils/shellutils.html,
>the latest testing version is 2.0.11 as of 2002/01/14.
>
>All of this makes me suspect that the Debian team has created their own
>version of sh-utils, which is what you are seeing.  OTOH, the debian
>website still calls this version GNU sh-utils, so I wonder why it reports
>itself differently.

Well, from 'apt-cache show shellutils':

   Description: The GNU shell programming utilities.
     The utilities: basename chroot date dirname echo env expr factor false groups
     hostid id logname nice nohup pathchk pinky printenv printf pwd seq sleep stty
     tee test true tty uname users who whoami yes.
	
>What is the point?  If these options only exist in the unstable version
>of debian, they aren't of much use right now.

Because it's not only a debian specific package necessarilly.  It's 
the GNU shell utilities.  It's entirely possible that they've set up 
autoconf to determine what this field should be a compile time.

I wouldn't be surprised if you were right, but there's no guarantee 
that this is the case.  That, and I'm curious :)
-- 

Seeya,
Paul
--
	It may look like I'm just sitting here doing nothing,
   but I'm really actively waiting for all my problems to go away.

	 If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!





More information about the gnhlug-discuss mailing list