From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Dec 30 18:57:55 1994
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) id SAA07398 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:57:55 -0800
Received: from UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU (root@UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU [129.7.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.9/8.6.6) with SMTP id SAA07392 for <freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com>; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 18:57:51 -0800
Received: from Taronga.COM by UUCP-GW.CC.UH.EDU with UUCP id AA13236
  (5.67a/IDA-1.5); Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:34:25 -0600
Received: by bonkers.taronga.com (smail2.5p) id AA21052; 30 Dec 94 20:16:57 CST (Fri)
Received: (from peter@localhost) by bonkers.taronga.com (8.6.8/8.6.6) id UAA21049; Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:16:57 -0600
From: Peter da Silva <peter@bonkers.taronga.com>
Message-Id: <199412310216.UAA21049@bonkers.taronga.com>
Subject: Re: uname -a/uname -v broken (or not?)
To: rivers%ponds@ncren.net (Thomas David Rivers)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 20:16:57 -0600 (CST)
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freefall.cdrom.com
In-Reply-To: <199412302225.RAA04475@ponds.UUCP> from "Thomas David Rivers" at Dec 30, 94 05:25:51 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23]
Content-Type: text
Content-Length: 591       
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> 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.