Re: [MiNT] uname (conclusion)

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

On Mon, 8 Feb 1999, Guido Flohr wrote:

> > > But a 1.11 kernel is not a FreeMiNT kernel.  It is a MiNT kernel.
> > 
> > Precisely why I think we should keep "MiNT" for uname, to keep things
> > simple and not break expected behavior from previous kernels.
> 
> If config.guess and config.sub accept "FreeMiNT" _and_ "MiNT" 99 % of all
> config scripts will work.  The rest is easily changed.
> 
> Look at BSD Unix: "BSD" is the official version by Berkeley University,
> and then we have "OpenBSD" and "FreeBSD".  Everybody is happy with that.
> Why not do the same for MiNT?

Agreed, as long as "MiNT" is still known to be a valid reply.. ;-)
Now, are the other uname replies agreeable to everyone too?  Can I alter 
uname.c (or whatever the lib source is - I don't remember off-hand) to
respond what I've outlined previously?

> BTW, I think I have found the bug in the kernel time.c.  I can send you
> the patch or you have to wait for Frank to do the next release.

Sending them to Frank is always a good idea.

Frank:  

could you add a folder named "Patch" on your web site, where people can
find all the patches you are being sent, between kernel and lib releases?
Thanks!

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