GNU bug report logs - #15757
"unknown" for uname -p related

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 15757 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 15757 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>
To: bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org
Cc: ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in
Subject: "unknown" for uname -p  related
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:51:19 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

hello ,

------------cut-x-here---------
$uname -p
unknown
$uname -m
x86_64
$uname -a
Linux debian 3.11-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.11.5-1 (2013-10-17) x86_64 GNU/Linux
$
---------cut-x-here----------

i will attach the output of cpuid command.
http://www.ka9q.net/code/cpuid/

I think it is not a bug to show "unknown" for -p
my processor is AMD A-Series

is possible to make "unknown" to the correct processor type.

Thanks.
/Jeffrin.

[cpuid-output.txt (text/plain, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Bernhard Voelker <mail <at> bernhard-voelker.de>
To: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>
Cc: 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15757: "unknown" for uname -p  related
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 22:13:18 +0100

forcemerge 15757 13001
thanks

On 10/30/2013 06:21 PM, Jeffrin Jose wrote:
> hello ,
> 
> ------------cut-x-here---------
> $uname -p
> unknown
> $uname -m
> x86_64
> $uname -a
> Linux debian 3.11-1-amd64 #1 SMP Debian 3.11.5-1 (2013-10-17) x86_64 GNU/Linux
> $
> ---------cut-x-here----------
> 
> i will attach the output of cpuid command.
> http://www.ka9q.net/code/cpuid/
> 
> I think it is not a bug to show "unknown" for -p
> my processor is AMD A-Series
> 
> is possible to make "unknown" to the correct processor type.
> 
> Thanks.
> /Jeffrin.

Thanks for the report.
This one has already been discussed:
  http://bugs.gnu.org/13001

There are several patches maintained in various distributions
for retrieving the processor type from /proc/cpuinfo (but not
for Debian obviously), e.g.

Fedora:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/coreutils-8.2-uname-processortype.patch

Gentoo:
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo/src/patchsets/coreutils/8.21/003_all_coreutils-gentoo-uname.patch?revision=1.1

openSUSE:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/Base:System/coreutils/coreutils-sysinfo.patch?expand=1

Unfortunately we didn't come to a conclusion yet on how
to maintain this in upstream coreutils.

Have a nice day,
Berny

Message #11 received at 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>
To: mstone <at> debian.org
Cc: ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in, 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: new uname.c  for uname -p fix related
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 01:46:33 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

hello,

i have patched debian source from sid for file 
uname.c for debian coreutils.

it does not show "unknown" for uname -p. hope it is fixed. 
i have applied a patch from gentoo for this.
i have attached the resulting  uname.c

Thanks.
/Jeffrin.


-- 
software engineer
rajagiri school of engineering and technology.

[uname-new.c (text/x-csrc, attachment)]

Message #14 received at 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>, mstone <at> debian.org
Cc: 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#15757: new uname.c  for uname -p fix related
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:25:59 -0600

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 10/31/2013 02:16 PM, Jeffrin Jose wrote:
> hello,
> 
> i have patched debian source from sid for file 
> uname.c for debian coreutils.
> 
> it does not show "unknown" for uname -p. hope it is fixed. 
> i have applied a patch from gentoo for this.
> i have attached the resulting  uname.c

Thanks for the attempt.  However, sending an entire file is not the
proper way to submit a patch.  For anyone to see what you have changed,
we would have to jump through hoops to manually diff the file ourselves.
 Please read http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/HACKING
for instructions on how to submit a proper diff limited to just the
changes you are making plus the context needed to unambiguously apply
those changes.  Furthermore, if you are copying the patch from somewhere
else, you should clearly state the original author of the patch rather
than claiming ownership of it yourself (but at least the terms of the
GPL mean that you are not violating any laws by reposting someone else's
public patch, because their copyright license granted you that right).

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #17 received at 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>
To: eblake <at> redhat.com
Cc: ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in, 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org, mstone <at> debian.org
Subject: with details related
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 02:45:37 +0530

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

hello,

whatever i did was with good intention.
if i have made mistakes,please forgive me.

i will attach the patch which i have used to
patch debian source of coreutils from sid.

actually the file i  attached in my previous
mail was for debian source from sid and not
for upstream coreutils.

anyway i will read ...
http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/HACKING


Please see the attachment.

Thanks.
/Jeffrin.



-- 
software engineer
rajagiri school of engineering and technology.

[003_all_coreutils-gentoo-uname.patch (text/x-diff, attachment)]

Message #20 received at 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Michael Stone <mstone <at> debian.org>
To: Jeffrin Jose <ahiliation <at> yahoo.co.in>
Cc: 15757 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: new uname.c  for uname -p fix related
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2013 08:50:29 -0400

On Fri, Nov 01, 2013 at 01:46:33AM +0530, Jeffrin Jose wrote:
>i have patched debian source from sid for file
>uname.c for debian coreutils.

For what it's worth, I stand by what I wrote in 
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=193170 in 2007 and 
still don't see any reason for -i and -p to exist. They may have made 
sense on some proprietary architectures in the distant path, but are 
irrelevant on contemporary systems.

Mike Stone

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.