From: wto@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (William T. O Connell)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux
Subject: Re: quick q
Summary: clarification
Date: 11 Jan 93 00:48:00 GMT
Organization: AT&T

In article <1993Jan10.202059.5632@csd.uwe.ac.uk>, root@slave.uwe.ac.uk (Operator (Phil/Dylan)) writes:
> In article <1993Jan7.034007.26946@sfu.ca>, wonge@fraser.sfu.ca (Edmund Wong)
> writes:
> |> In article <1993Jan6.080443.10051@cbfsb.cb.att.com> wto@cbnewsg.cb.att.com
> |> (William T. O Connell) writes:
> |> >In article <1993Jan6.071608.4248@wuecl.wustl.edu> ppc1@cec2.wustl.edu (Peter
> |> Pui Tak Chiu) writes:
> 
> |> >Put 'hostname <something you like>' in you rc file.
> 
> it's usually specified in the rc.local (for linux)
> 
> 
> |> trying to ask is that (root@softland) thing.  Well. Considering he
> |> didn't specify where, I could be given some leeway in interpretation here.
> |> But like, for that (root@softland) to be changed to (root@?????), I think
> |> he'd need to recompile the kernel under the ????? hostname, am I correct?
> 
> wrong,....
> 
> several files come into play
> 
> /etc/issue
> /etc/motd
> /etc/rc.local (normally where the hostname is defined NOT the /etc/rc)
> 

Agree, BUT it's the administrator's own preference where (s)he puts it.


> depending on what shell (s)he runs, it can also be hard coded into your
> prompt statement rather tha using enviroment variables

You say that the above responder is WRONG? Either we are talking about
two different things or your post is wrong. Since he was talking about 
recompiling the kernel, I believe the responder above was referring to 
the line at bootup time that contains (root@softland) as follows:
	. . .
	Partion table ok
	Linux Version 0.99.pl2-66 (root@ranger) 01/08/93 01:02:04
	===== /etc/rc running ======    
	. . .
Where mine says (root@ranger).

He's right, you do need to recompile the kernel. It has nothing to
do with /etc/issue or /etc/motd. Now, those two files might have also
contain (root@softland), my memory fades me :-), which the previous
poster could be referring to?

That line is actually constructed from /usr/src/linux/tools/version.h
and is be updated when you patch the kernel, i.e., these following
lines were in the last patch which updated version.h.

<<< extraction from last patch >>>
***************
*** 141,147 ****
  
  Version: dummy
  	@./makever.sh
! 	@echo \#define UTS_RELEASE \"0.99.pl1-`cat .version`\" > tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define UTS_VERSION \"`date +%D`\" >> tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define LINUX_COMPILE_TIME \"`date +%T`\" >> tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define LINUX_COMPILE_BY \"`whoami`\" >> tools/version.h
--- 142,148 ----
  
  Version: dummy
  	@./makever.sh
! 	@echo \#define UTS_RELEASE \"0.99.pl2-`cat .version`\" > tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define UTS_VERSION \"`date +%D`\" >> tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define LINUX_COMPILE_TIME \"`date +%T`\" >> tools/version.h
  	@echo \#define LINUX_COMPILE_BY \"`whoami`\" >> tools/version.h
***************
*** 149,155 ****

My copy of version.h looked like this after the patch:

#define UTS_RELEASE "0.99.pl2-66"
#define UTS_VERSION "01/08/93"
#define LINUX_COMPILE_TIME "01:02:09"
#define LINUX_COMPILE_BY "root"
#define LINUX_COMPILE_HOST "ranger"

- Bill O'Connell	wto@ihlpx.att.com
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux