Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 13:01:38 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: Cygwin-Developers Subject: Re: uname -s question Message-ID: <20010222130138.N11175@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: Cygwin-Developers References: <20010222120933 DOT E449 AT dothill DOT com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <20010222120933.E449@dothill.com>; from Jason.Tishler@dothill.com on Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:09:33PM -0500 On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 12:09:33PM -0500, Jason Tishler wrote: >Does anyone use the information, that starts with the "_" in "uname -s"? >For example on NT 4.0, I'm referring to the "_NT-4.0". > >My only "use" is to excise it during tests for Cygwin in things like >the following: > > autoconf (i.e. sh) scripts > bash scripts > makefiles > python scripts > >It is probably too late and quite naive to ask but... Can this >information be removed to facilitate testing for Cygwin? I don't see why this is necessary. It comes up repeatedly and the extremely simple solution is to match on CYGWIN*. Many other systems use this convention. For instance, look at gdb's configure.in or configure.tgt script. There is a 'hpux*' and a 'solaris*'. The information *could* potentially be important. Cygwin running on NT is not the same thing as Cygwin running on 95. cgf