From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Apr 15 13:10:05 1996
Return-Path: owner-bugs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA00905
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:10:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id NAA00894
          Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604152010.NAA00894@freefall.freebsd.org>
To: freebsd-bugs
Cc: 
From: Mike Pritchard <mpp>
Subject: Re: bin/1139: uname.1 and uname.c disagree about display ordering
Reply-To: Mike Pritchard <mpp>
Sender: owner-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

The following reply was made to PR bin/1139; it has been noted by GNATS.

From: Mike Pritchard <mpp>
To: lyndon@orthanc.com
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/1139: uname.1 and uname.c disagree about display ordering
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 13:09:43 -0700 (PDT)

 Lyndon Nerenberg wrote:
 > 
 > >Description:
 > 
 > uname(1) claims '-a' is the same as '-m -n -r -s -v' however the
 > code displays as '-n -r -s -v -m'. 
 > 
 > >How-To-Repeat:
 > 
 > >Fix:
 > 	
 > The following patch to /usr/src/usr.bin/uname/uname.c rearranges
 > the flag checks to match the man page.
 
 If anything, the man page should be changed to match the code,
 not the other way around.  uname -a has worked this way for a long
 time, and changing its output now is not a good idea.
 -- 
 Mike Pritchard
 mpp@freebsd.org
 "Go that way.  Really fast.  If something gets in your way, turn"