[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: bug in hostname

From: Steven Augart
Subject: Re: bug in hostname
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:37:27 -0400

Jim Meyering <address@hidden>
10/07/2003 01:56 PM
        To:     Steven Augart/Watson/Contr/address@hidden
        cc:     Martin MOKREJŠ <address@hidden>, 
        Subject:        Re: bug in hostname

Steven Augart <address@hidden> wrote:
> I could not agree more.    I am not terribly pleased that there is now a

`now'?  It's been in the sh-utils/coreutils for over 8 years.

Oh.  Thanks for the correction.  That would certainly account for why I 
didn't find discussion of it in the bug-coreutils archive.

I agree in principle that these days coreutils `hostname' program
is often not useful.  But bear in mind that the vast majority of
users don't have a problem because they use these tools via a
distribution mechanism (.rpm, .deb) that arranges not to install
programs like hostname that can cause trouble.

Paul Jarc's point that the GNU/Hurd system will need a hostname program is 
well put.  Perhaps we could provide a simple way for more casual users not 
to install the hostname program.  But really, if we add simple support for 
--fqdn and --short (as well as -f and -s) it would meet my needs.

Many people experience problems with the fact that head, tail, uniq, etc.
no longer accept options like `-1', `+2' when the tools are built in a
conforming environment.  There are still many scripts that use e.g. `head 
and fail badly (or worse, subtly) when head fails.

Thanks for the warning.  I'm not sure what you mean by "Conforming 
Environment".  Is there some level of Posix conformance here?  At any 
rate, my environment is apparently non-conforming, since the "tail" I 
built is happily taking options like "-1".

Is there an online discussion of the topic you could point me to?

--Steve Augart

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]