Walter, Denys
So the posix spec is the one that has recently been deleted. I guess that enhances the argument for supporting it. Denys - I can see you have access to many more varieties than I have - I confess I had no idea there were so many. So my goal of making up a version which works on "busybox" or "big linux" is rather fatally flawed anyway, as there is no such single thing in this case. David In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (walter harms) wrote: > *From:* walter harms <[email protected]> > *To:* Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]> > *CC:* [email protected], [email protected], > [email protected] > *Date:* Mon, 17 Jan 2011 10:33:19 +0100 > > Am 15.01.2011 19:24, schrieb Denys Vlasenko: > > On Friday 14 January 2011 13:47, David Collier wrote: > >> In article > <memo.20110114113746.14188A@postmaster+dexdyne.com.cix.co.uk>, > >> [email protected] (David Collier) wrote: > >> > >>> *From:* "David Collier" <[email protected]> > >>> *To:* [email protected] > >>> *CC:* [email protected] > >>> *Date:* Fri, 14 Jan 2011 11:37 +0000 (GMT Standard Time) > >>> > >>> "big linux" date command seems to like a single format when you > are > >>> setting the date > >>> > >>> that is [MMDDhhmm[[CC]YY][.ss]] > >>> > >>> if I do "date --help" in busybox it says: > >>> > >>> Recognized TIME formats: > >>> hh:mm[:ss] > >>> [YYYY.]MM.DD-hh:mm[:ss] > >>> YYYY-MM-DD hh:mm[:ss] > >>> [[[[[YY]YY]MM]DD]hh]mm[.ss] > >>> > >>> which doesn't seem to allow for MMDDhhmmCCYY > >>> > >>> however when I experiment with > >>> > >>> date 011410032011 > >>> > >>> it all seems to work as desired. > >> > >> rubbish - I screwed my tests > >> > >> it worked in 1.13.1, > >> though it wasn't documented as an acceptable format > >> it no longer works in 1.17.4 > >> > >> So I guess the help file is now telling the truth. > >> > >> It seems a bit silly not to accept the only standard format as > used by > >> the coreutils version? > > > > There seems to be no consensus between Unix-like systems on this: > > > > > > > > > http://developer.apple.com/library/mac/#documentation/darwin/referen > ce/manpages/man1/date.1.html > > DATE(1) BSD General Commands > > Manual DATE(1) > > SYNOPSIS > > date [-jnu] [[[mm]dd]HH]MM[[cc]yy][.ss] > > > > http://www.daemon-systems.org/man/date.1.html > > DATE(1) NetBSD General Commands Manual > > DATE(1) > > SYNOPSIS > > date [-ajnu] [-d date] [-r seconds] [+format] > > [[[[[[CC]yy]mm]dd]HH]MM[.SS]] > > > > http://ss64.com/osx/date.html > > Syntax > > date [-nu] [-r seconds] [+format] > > [[[[[cc]yy]mm]dd]hh]mm[.ss] > > > > http://unixhelp.ed.ac.uk/CGI/man-cgi?date > > DATE(1) User Commands DATE(1) > > SYNOPSIS > > date [-u|--utc|--universal] [MMDDhhmm[[CC]YY][.ss]] > > > > "man date" on Fedora: > > DATE(1) User Commands > > DATE(1) > > SYNOPSIS > > date [-u|--utc|--universal] [MMDDhhmm[[CC]YY][.ss]] > > > > > >>From these five examples, two use [[cc]yy]mmddhhmm[.ss] and three > > use mmddhhmm[[cc]yy][.ss] format. > > > > > > But for another tool, touch, all manpages I was able to find > > uniformly say > > that "touch -t DT" accepts DT = [[cc]yy]mmddhhmm[.ss] format on > > every Unix. > > None of them use mmddhhmm[[cc]yy][.ss] for it. > > > > > > I am torn here. From one POV, compatibility with "big Linux" date > > is good. > >>From another, mmddhhmm[[cc]yy][.ss] format is (a) stupid, (b) > does not match > > "touch -t" format, and (c) doesn't seem to be the universally > > accepted syntax > > in wider Unix world. > > > > > > For completness the POSIX manual says: > date [-u] mmddhhmm[[cc]yy] > > re, > wh > > > _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
