Mailing-List: contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT sources DOT redhat DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-developers-owner AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin-developers AT sources DOT redhat DOT com
Message-Id: <4.3.1.2.20010912132714.02f5dab8@pop.ma.ultranet.com>
X-Sender: lhall AT pop DOT ma DOT ultranet DOT com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.1
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2001 13:38:43 -0400
To: cygdev <cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
From: "Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc)" <lhall AT rfk DOT com>
Subject: Re: 1.3.3 branch is tagged
In-Reply-To: <20010912185729.A1285@cygbert.vinschen.de>
References: <20010912125042 DOT B18104 AT redhat DOT com>
 <20010912123550 DOT A18092 AT redhat DOT com>
 <20010912184555 DOT Y1285 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>
 <20010912125042 DOT B18104 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

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