Mail Archives: cygwin-developers/2001/09/12/13:37:59
At 12:57 PM 9/12/2001, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 12:50:42PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 06:45:55PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> > >On Wed, Sep 12, 2001 at 12:35:50PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> > >> Feel free to check in changes.
> > >
> > >BTW, should uname -s print
> > >
> > > CYGWIN_NT-5.1
> > >
> > >or
> > >
> > > CYGWIN_XP-5.1
> > >
> > >in future...
> >
> > The latter, I guess. Otherwise people will complain.
>
>Oh, I'm sure they will complain either way... the developers
>when we choose XP, the users when we choose NT.
Quite true. I guess the appropriate question is - what's the most common
use of uname -s? Programatically, it's probably easier to keep Cygwin
categorized under NT, since that's it's closest relative and will likely
transparently fit into existing mechanisms that folks may have which use
this value now. If users want to see some specific indication of the O/S
their using, well, then I guess that would be XP. Personally, I don't see
the latter case being that important. At least up to now, we have not
attempted to report the specific O/S (i.e. uname -s on my W2K machine
reports "CYGWIN_NT-5.0", not "CYGWIN_W2K-5.0". To me, that indicates the
ship has sailed on this one. There's no reason to recall it now. In any
case, if we're going to see complaints one way or the other, I'd prefer to
pick a convention that one can defend as useful.
Larry Hall lhall AT rfk DOT com
RFK Partners, Inc. http://www.rfk.com
118 Washington Street (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
Holliston, MA 01746 (508) 893-9889 - FAX
- Raw text -