On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:29 PM, David Collier <[email protected]> wrote: > Just a thought... > > busybox seems to ignore the -s switch on date.
It doesn't ignore it: date -s DATETIME does set time. > However - for the separately compiled "date" I looked at, -s switches the > date format over to something completely different. > > so > > date -s "...." > > would work under busybox, but give an error under Linux... To paraphrase more clearly: Bbox date treats date DATETIME and date -s DATETIME essentially the same (except for the MMDDhhmm[[CC]YY][.ss] case, which is supported only without -s). Coreutils date supports both formats, but uses different syntaxes for DATETIME in them. Why is this a problem? > even when > > date "same string" > > would actually work fine under Linux > > Is there an argument for busybox rejecting the -s option as > "unimplemented" since we don't implement the data format it implies??? What data format does it imply? And again, want to clarify: bbox date is more restrictive, and possibly in some cases incompatible regarding DATETIME formats it accepts. I think the solution to that is to carefully extend the set of accepted formats. Tell me which format do you feel bbox date needs to be extended to support? -- vda _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
