Re: [MiNT] uname (conclusion)

[Martin-Eric Racine <q-funk@pp.fishpool.com>]

> As far as I can see it the majority has decided that future versions of
> uname should reply "FreeMiNT", right?  From what I understood of Eric R.
> Smith's posting that's also the solution he prefers.

Ermm... about 5 readers replied, that's a bit thin...

Eric also said that "MiNT" was perfectly acceptable for uname or as
an overall OS name, as long as the kernel's bootup message explicitely 
states that it is a _modified_ version of MiNT.

> So, this should be put on the TODO list for the MiNTlib.
> For older kernels uname should then still reply "MiNT".

Since previous versions have replied "MiNT" and given Eric's
statement that MiNT _is_ an acceptable overall name, I think
we should K.I.S.S (keep it simple stupid) and keep MiNT.

> The second conclusion:  When porting software you should be prepared for
> "MiNT", "FreeMiNT" and "mint" as the output of uname.  

So, to recap possible uname replies:

-m  m68k
-p  68000, 68020, 68030, 68040 (ie: _CPU cookie)
-r  MiNT version (currently 1.15.1 - or as reported by MiNT cookie)
-s  FreeMiNT, MiNT, TOS (preferably MiNT)
-v  TOS version (ie: 1.04, 2.06, 3.06, etc.)

Was that complete?

----------------------------------------------------------------
  Martin-Eric Racine * http://www.pp.fishpool.com/~q-funk/M-E/
  The Atari TT030 Homepage * http://members.tripod.com/~TT030/
----------------------------------------------------------------