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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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