platform/architecture (was: new beta)

* platform/architecture (was: new beta)
@ 2011-01-26 23:21 Mojca Miklavec
  2011-01-27  6:25 ` Taco Hoekwater
  2011-01-27  6:39 ` Martin Schröder
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Mojca Miklavec @ 2011-01-26 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: mailing list for ConTeXt users

On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 22:16, Taco Hoekwater wrote:
>> Maybe "bash --version" would be more reliable than uname?
>
> If you do something like that, then you may as well do
>
>  $ file /bin/ls

Not too useful either ...

> bash --version
GNU bash, version 3.2.48(1)-release (x86_64-apple-darwin10.0)
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> file /bin/ls
/bin/ls: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures
/bin/ls (for architecture x86_64):	Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64
/bin/ls (for architecture i386):	Mach-O executable i386

However ... this discussion was already being held long ago ... there
is no reason why luatex could not be as smart as "bash --version" is
and aware of the architecture it was compiled for (that is not
necessary the platform it is running on; an obvious case being i386
luatex running on 64-bit Mas OS X for example). Somebody would have to
write some simple code to check for that though.

Mojca
___________________________________________________________________________________
If your question is of interest to others as well, please add an entry to the Wiki!

maillist : ntg-context@ntg.nl / http://www.ntg.nl/mailman/listinfo/ntg-context
webpage  : http://www.pragma-ade.nl / http://tex.aanhet.net
archive  : http://foundry.supelec.fr/projects/contextrev/
wiki     : http://contextgarden.net
___________________________________________________________________________________

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread