Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Simon Josefsson wrote:
Sam Steingold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
1. why aren't you testing for HAVE_SYS_UTSNAME_H instead?
2. are there really systems without uname & <sys/utsname.h>, given
that these are in posix?
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/uname.html
I think the right solution here should be to apply the patch below.
If there are problems on any system caused by that, the solution to
that problem should be to create a module for sys/utsname.h and uname.
The gethostname module shouldn't depend on such modules, they need to
be added manually by maintainers who want compatibility with non-POSIX
systems. Thoughts?
note that gethostname is just as posix as uname,
http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/009695399/functions/gethostname.html
so the gethostname module is only needed for non-posix systems.
Indeed, so I am less sure my patch is the right thing. Could you
explain why the current code causes problems for you?
no problems - just questions:
1. is this module ever needed on a unix system?
i.e., are there any unix systems still in use that lack gethostname?
2. are there any unix systems still in use that lack uname?
Ben answered those questions. Even if the code may not be optimal for
some platform we aren't aware of, until we know of a real problem with
it I think we could leave the code as-is.
Please name the platform(s) which can benefit from this module.
Ben's answer suggests that the set is empty.
