Ken Irving wrote: >I do agree for the most part that using UTC on the loggers would be >simpler to manage,
That's what I'd recommend for any new application. > the ideal solution would be >to have zones like the 'Etc/' ones, but hopefuly using the less funky >modern offset sense, If you need a non-zero fixed offset, and must use named zones rather than DT:TZ:OffsetOnly, I recommend not worrying about the names. If your requirement for compatibility is that you can implement the zone as a $TZ value, rather than that you actually use an Olson name, another option is an explicit SystemV-style zone specification. You can get whatever combination you want of offset and initialism. For example, "<UT-09>9" is a valid $TZ value: $ date -u; TZ="<UT-09>9" date Thu Dec 5 18:18:48 UTC 2013 Thu Dec 5 09:18:48 UT-09 2013 DT:TZ doesn't handle this kind of zone specification, but DT:TZ:SystemV does. -zefram
