[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: system calls, like uname

Forgive me if I am out of line here, but is there anyone who can speak
from an inside prespective of both kernel development with an inside
understanding on the LSB as well that can comment on this?  Like, is
Alan Cox or someone lurking on this list, and could they comment?

Aaron Gaudio wrote:
> And lo, the chronicles report that Robert W.
> Current spake thusly unto the masses:
> >
> > So, I think I am inclined to disagree.  I don't think something like
> > uname would be in the scope of kernel development.
> Actually, uname is already in the scope of kernel
> development: it's a system call- uname(2)
> The original poster was saying that there should
> be another system call which returns information
> about the hardware. I personally think the kernel
> already has a way to return hardware information:
> it's called the proc filesystem. But whether you 
> feel this functionality belongs in the kernel or
> userland is irrelevant here, since if there
> isn't anything already which does this, I don't 
> think LSB should conjure one up.
> If you think it belongs in the kernel, 
> it should be discussed on the kernel lists.
> If you think it belongs as an app then find
> some developers who agree and are willing to work
> on it.
> Either way, LSB shouldn't be concerned with it
> until there is something there to be concerned with.

"Robert W. Current" <rob@freshmeat.net> - email
http://chem20.chem.und.nodak.edu     - work stuff
http://www.current.nu                - personal web site
http://freshmeat.net                 - editorial coordinator
"Hey mister, turn it on, turn it up, and turn me loose." - Dwight Yoakam

Reply to: