Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:16:57 -0600 (CST) From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com> To: rivers%ponds@ncren.net (Thomas David Rivers) Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: uname -a/uname -v broken (or not?) Message-ID: <199412310216.UAA21049@bonkers.taronga.com> In-Reply-To: <199412302225.RAA04475@ponds.UUCP> from "Thomas David Rivers" at Dec 30, 94 05:25:51 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> The man page claims that uname is POSIX conforming - can someone check > IEE Std1003.2 to see if we've broken this.... Wasn't there a big flame war about this, whether scripts should be parsing this information and whether POSIX required it to be parsable and whether anyone was doing anyone a favor by encouraging them to depend on the format of uname -a when it wasn't guaranteed on other platforms and so on? Was that on the NetBSD list, maybe? I forget. MHO: uname should be useful as well as POSIX-conforming, and should output space-separated tokens that do not contain spaces.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199412310216.UAA21049>