On Sunday 26 July 2009 17:05, Cristian Ionescu-Idbohrn wrote: > On Sun, 26 Jul 2009, Denys Vlasenko wrote: > > > Documentation was changed, IIRC in the same commit, to say > > [[[[[YY]YY]MM]DD]hh]mm[.ss] instead of MMDDhhmm[[YY]YY][.ss]: > > > > # ./busybox date --help > > BusyBox v1.15.0.svn (2009-07-26 13:45:10 CEST) multi-call binary > > > > Usage: date [OPTIONS] [+FMT] [TIME] > > ... > > Recognized formats for TIME: > > hh:mm[:ss] > > [YYYY.]MM.DD-hh:mm[:ss] > > YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm[:ss] > > [[[[[YY]YY]MM]DD]hh]mm[.ss] > > > > (It seems that MMDDhhmm[[YY]YY][.ss] format was a bbox invention, > > because it's slightly easier to parse. Google didn't show any > > other programs which use such format. See a comment in libbb/time.c) > > Right. Sorry, missed that :( > > Noticed though some discrepecies bbox vs. gnu date. > See attached, which reveals the oddities.
Can you elaborate? The only thing that GNU coreutils 6.9 accepts and we dont is: date -d '1984-04-04 11' '+%d/%m/%y %T' it is mentioned in libbb/time.c: //TODO: coreutils 6.9 also accepts "yyyy-mm-dd HH" (no minutes) All other examples match. -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
