chapman@sco.COM (Brian Chapman) (01/04/91)
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: >Sounds good but it seems to me I already have that version. Running >"uname -v -r" shows: > 3.2 2 BTW all versions of SCO UNIX uname(C) report "3.2 2". This is what the utsname contained in the original AT+T system V 3.2 tape. And we have left it alone for compatiblity reasons. In 3.2v2 we have defined a scoutsname structure that is printed out w/ uname -X. If uname -X fails w/ an error message then you have 3.2.0 or 3.2.1. Doing a what(C) of the binaries, as jpr points out, is a valid test of the version. -- Brian Chapman uunet!sco!chapman Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!
jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) (01/04/91)
In article <9392@scolex.sco.COM> chapman@sco.COM (Brian Chapman) writes: > >jpr@jpradley.jpr.com (Jean-Pierre Radley) writes: > >>Sounds good but it seems to me I already have that version. Running >>"uname -v -r" shows: >> 3.2 2 > >BTW all versions of SCO UNIX uname(C) report "3.2 2". > >This is what the utsname contained in the original >AT+T system V 3.2 tape. And we have left it alone >for compatiblity reasons. > >In 3.2v2 we have defined a scoutsname structure that >is printed out w/ uname -X. > >If uname -X fails w/ an error message then you have >3.2.0 or 3.2.1. > >Doing a what(C) of the binaries, as jpr points out, is >a valid test of the version. > Ok, thanks for that information, which certainly wasn't obvious. So now if I type uname -X, I get: System = jpradley Node = jpradley Release = 3.2v2.0 KernelID = 90/06/10 Machine = i80386 BusType = AT Serial = sco006664 Users = unlim OEM# = 0 Origin# = 1 NumCPU = 1 Meanwhile my 'vi' is still broken. Jean-Pierre Radley NYC Public Unix jpr@jpr.com CIS: 72160,1341