Your message dated Fri, 8 Jul 2011 15:04:37 +0200
with message-id <[email protected]>
and subject line Bug #590229: Not a bug
has caused the Debian Bug report #590229,
regarding [coreutils] date reports illegal date jan 1st. 1982
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact [email protected]
immediately.)
--
590229: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=590229
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact [email protected] with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: coreutils
Version: 8.5-1
Severity: normal
--- Please enter the report below this line. ---
I am sure this one is upstream - and it's absolutely weird. This should
explain all:
lth@ncpws04:~$ date --date=1981-12-31
Thu Dec 31 00:00:00 MALT 1981
lth@ncpws04:~$ date --date=1982-01-01
date: invalid date `1982-01-01'
lth@ncpws04:~$ date --date=1982-01-02
Sat Jan 2 00:00:00 MYT 1982
lth@ncpws04:~$ date --date=1981-01-01
Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 MALT 1981
lth@ncpws04:~$ date --date=1983-01-01
Sat Jan 1 00:00:00 MYT 1983
I discovered this one because I had a script that ran through all dates from
jan 1st 1950 to dec. 31 2009. Within that range, jan 1st 1982 is the only
date failing.
--- System information. ---
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-686
Debian Release: squeeze/sid
900 testing debian
500 maemo5-sdk scratchbox.org
200 stable debian
100 unstable debian
--- Package information. ---
Package's Depends field is empty.
Package's Recommends field is empty.
Package's Suggests field is empty.
--
Lars Boegild Thomsen
Netcom Partner Sdn. Bhd.
Mobile (work): +60 12 361 6644
Mobile (pvt.): +60 16 323 1999
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
tag 590229 wontfix
thanks
As Alan explained:
Alan Curry wrote:
> Note that since you gave a date without a time, 00:00:00 was assumed.
> On Jan 1, 1982, 00:00:00 did not exist in your location because of a
> timezone change. A correctly adjusted clock went directly from "Thu
> Dec 31 23:59:59 MALT 1981" to "Fri Jan 1 00:30:00 MYT 1982", skipping
> half an hour.
So date is right in claiming that 1981-12-31 is an invalid date in this
locale.
--
Benoît Knecht
--- End Message ---
