[RFC] Drop the Coreutils Uname patch

Ag. D. Hatzimanikas a.hatzim at gmail.com
Wed Apr 25 13:57:43 PDT 2007


On Tue, Apr 24, at 07:27 Matthew Burgess wrote:
> On Tuesday 24 April 2007 08:27, Randy McMurchy wrote:
> > Randy McMurchy wrote these words on 04/24/07 02:11 CST:
> > > Then -1 to Matt's proposal to remove the patch. Seems dumb to remove
> > > a patch that provides a better end product.
> >
> > In my haste in replying I didn't think through this response, please:
> >
> > s/Seems dumb to/I would prefer that we didn't/
> 
> Oh, ever the diplomat Randy :-)
> 
> The reasons I wanted to drop the patch were in my original RFC, the main one 
> being that it's never going to get accepted upstream as the functionality to 
> determine the processor type belongs in the kernel.  Thinking over that again 
> though, that's exactly the same situation faced by the Coreutils i18n patch - 
> it provides useful functionality but in a manner that upstream won't accept.  
> So, maybe it wasn't a very strong argument after all.
> 
> Given the above, and the fact that those that responded want the patch kept, 
> I'll just let it lie for now.
> 

How about a compromise. In fact as more I am thinking about it, it's the right
thing to do.

How about a note in the Coreutils page?
Where, we will mention the behavior of the unpatched uname, as it get
reported by Greg, and then we will simple say that the dev-team decided
to apply the patch, because of the xi-psi (as we say in my neighborhood) reasons.
And we will simple mention the reasons.

I would go even further and maybe submitted a good report/bug to both
kernel/Coreutils teams.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list