From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jul 27 21:50:10 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A379D1065722 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1E678FC29 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n6RLo800011711 for ; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n6RLo8TS011707; Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:08 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:08 GMT Message-Id: <200907272150.n6RLo8TS011707@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.org From: Garrett Wollman Cc: Subject: standards/137173: `uname -n` incorrect behavior X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Garrett Wollman List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 21:50:11 -0000 The following reply was made to PR standards/137173; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Garrett Wollman To: Andy Kosela Cc: freebsd-gnats-submit@freebsd.org Subject: standards/137173: `uname -n` incorrect behavior Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2009 17:19:36 -0400 < said: > Currently `uname -n` prints the name of the system (FQDN) to standard output. I believe this is incorrect behavior according to IEEE Std 1003.1. > -n > Write the name of this node within an implementation-defined communications network. What makes you think that the behavior of "uname -n" does not match this description? -GAWollman