From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Dec 30 15:39:02 1994 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id PAA04195 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:39:02 -0800 Received: from reggae.ncren.net (reggae.ncren.net [128.109.131.3]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with ESMTP id PAA04188 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 15:39:00 -0800 Received: from ponds.UUCP by reggae.ncren.net (5.65/tas-reggae/may94) id AA18785; Fri, 30 Dec 94 18:37:42 -0500 Received: (rivers@localhost) by ponds.UUCP (8.6.9/8.6.5) id RAA04475 for mcnc!freefall.cdrom.com!freebsd-hackers; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:25:51 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 17:25:51 -0500 From: Thomas David Rivers Message-Id: <199412302225.RAA04475@ponds.UUCP> To: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: uname -a/uname -v broken (or not?) Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk I'm not up in the particulars of POSIX here, but I was just playing aroung with uname and noticed the following output of 'uname -a'. FreeBSD lakes.water.net 2.0-RELEASE FreeBSD 2.0-RELEASE #1: Mon Dec 5 21:06:49 EST 1994 rivers@lakes.water.net:/usr/src/sys/compile/LAKES i386 Now, I know I've written shell scripts that don't use the uname options, but depend on the fact that fields are blank separated, and use uname -a. The '-v' (the version level) output contains *many* spaces (around the build date, who built it, etc...) which, of course, would break any such assumption. >From the man page, we have the text: If the -a flag is specified, or multiple flags are specified, all output is written on a single line, separated by spaces. which would indicate that the spaces in the version information are incorrect. The man page claims that uname is POSIX conforming - can someone check IEE Std1003.2 to see if we've broken this.... If it is broken, what should we use for the "version" information? - Dave Rivers -