Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3E1EE0ED.9E8DD171@ieee.org>
Date:	Fri, 10 Jan 2003 10:04:13 -0500
From:	"Pierre A. Humblet" <Pierre DOT Humblet AT ieee DOT org>
X-Accept-Language:	en,pdf
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: gethostname() patch
References:	<20030110130259 DOT E1401 AT cygbert DOT vinschen DOT de>

Corinna Vinschen wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I've just removed some old cruft from cygwin_gethostname which had
> the annoying result that always the return value of GetComputerName()
> has been used instead of the return value of gethostname().  Now
> Cygwin's gethostname and hostname(1) report the winsock value of the
> hostname which is lower case.
> 
> My questions is:  Shouldn't uname call this function as well?  Uname
> still uses the upper case value returned from GetComputerName().

Are you saying that the only difference is case? If so, no problem.
I vaguely remember that it could be much more than that (WinME), 
with gethostname reporting unexpected values from the registry
instead of the BIOS name. I can't test now.
Please don't include a uname change in the coming Cygwin release
before more testing.  

Pierre

- Raw text -