From owner-freebsd-bugs  Mon Apr 15 17:30:08 1996
Return-Path: owner-bugs
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA20318
          for bugs-outgoing; Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:30:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from gnats@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA20302
          Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <199604160030.RAA20302@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 (Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP)
Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: bin/1139: uname.1 and uname.c disagree about display ordering
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 1996 17:24:51 -0700 (PDT)

 Lyndon Nerenberg VE7TCP wrote:
 > 
 > If the man page is changed (instead of the code), it should also indicate
 > that the command ignores the ordering of the flags and always spits the
 > data out in a fixed order.
 
 Looking at the man page shows that the flags described for "-a"
 are listed in alphabetical order, which seems perfectly reasonable
 to me.  Since most commands under FreeBSD ignore the order of 
 command line flags, I don't think adding something mentioning this fact 
 in the uname.1 man page really makes sense, since we would have to 
 modify a large number of other man pages to be consistent.
 
 I suggest we leave uname.1 as is.
 -- 
 Mike Pritchard
 mpp@freebsd.org
 "Go that way.  Really fast.  If something gets in your way, turn"