Comment 3 for bug 1258051

The difficulty I have now is we're approaching a future where we'll
have tools witht he same version string produced by two different
compiler toolchains. I need a way to figure out which is which when
apportioning blame ^h^h^h bug reports.

I can figure which is which using ldd and chicken guts, but I'd like a
more customer friendly way, especially if we're talking about adding
some kind of 'bug report' script that scrapes up all the bits and
pieces.

On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 7:54 PM, John A Meinel <email address hidden> wrote:
> Sorry, that ended up on the wrong bug report.
>
> I think this would be fine. We could do multiple lines if we wanted to. Or a verbose flag, or a few different things.
> What is the specific goal? To have people include the info in bug reports (by default)? Or to be able to ask for the information?
>
>
> ** Changed in: juju-core
> Status: Incomplete => Triaged
>
> --
> You received this bug notification because you are subscribed to the bug
> report.
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1258051
>
> Title:
> cmd/juju: version subcommand should report the compiler version
>
> Status in juju-core:
> Triaged
>
> Bug description:
> I would like there to be a way to retrieve the compiler that compiled
> juju, jujud.
>
> The suggestion is to add this to the output of juju version, something
> like
>
> % juju version
> 1.17.0-saucy-amd64 (gccgo)
>
> There are probably some compatability concerns
>
> To manage notifications about this bug go to:
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/juju-core/+bug/1258051/+subscriptions