[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Possible bug in uname command
|
From: |
Alfred M\. Szmidt |
|
Subject: |
Re: Possible bug in uname command |
|
Date: |
Wed, 14 Sep 2005 18:11:56 +0200 |
> That's been discussed, but it sounds like a can of worms.
I have often thought it would be better if on machines that could
not reasonably support those extra uname options that the options
be disabled entirely. Then instead of unknown the program would
report it as an invalid option.
But that will break scripts like mad... :(
- Possible bug in uname command, Asif Iqbal, Trumboo, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Eric Blake, 2005/09/13
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command,
Alfred M\. Szmidt <=
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/14
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Paul Eggert, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Jim Meyering, 2005/09/15
- Re: Possible bug in uname command, Bob Proulx, 2005/09/16