Your message dated Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:00:08 -0800
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#179139: libc6: invalid date from date -d 1969-12-31
has caused the attached Bug report 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 I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Jan 2003 02:59:56 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 30 20:59:55 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from 209-6-167-4.c3-0.arl-ubr1.sbo-arl.ma.cable.rcn.com (schedar.com)
[209.6.167.4]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18eRPH-0001st-00; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:59:55 -0600
Received: from stan by schedar.com with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian))
id 18eRPG-0006j4-00; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:59:54 -0500
From: Stan Heckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: libc6: invalid date from date -d 1969-12-31
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 21:59:54 -0500
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.6 required=5.0
tests=SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: libc6
Version: 2.3.1-10
Severity: normal
$ date --version | head -3; date -d 1969-12-31
date (coreutils) 4.5.2
Written by David MacKenzie.
date: invalid date `1969-12-31'
I expected output something like like "Wed Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 1969", not "invalid
date".
All dates before 1970-01-01 that I have tried seem to produce "invalid date"; all
dates after
1970-01-01 that I have tried produce the output I expect.
There is some discussion of this bug on the lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] and
[EMAIL PROTECTED] near the end of January, 2003.
-- System Information
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux pipkin 2.4.18 #1 Fri Aug 16 15:40:44 EDT 2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages libc6 depends on:
ii libdb1-compat 2.1.3-7 The Berkeley database routines [gl
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 179139-close) by bugs.debian.org; 31 Jan 2003 04:00:11 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 30 22:00:10 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from delta.nisa.net [207.194.212.31]
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18eSLa-0003vb-00; Thu, 30 Jan 2003 22:00:10 -0600
Received: from delta.nisa.net (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by delta.nisa.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id h0V408rQ005158
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=FAIL);
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:00:09 -0800
Received: (from jbailey@localhost)
by delta.nisa.net (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id h0V408H6005156;
Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:00:08 -0800
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 20:00:08 -0800
From: Jeff Bailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Stan Heckman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#179139: libc6: invalid date from date -d 1969-12-31
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-14.1 required=5.0
tests=EMAIL_ATTRIBUTION,IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,
SPAM_PHRASE_05_08,USER_AGENT,USER_AGENT_MUTT
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
On Thu, Jan 30, 2003 at 09:59:54PM -0500, Stan Heckman wrote:
> $ date --version | head -3; date -d 1969-12-31
> date (coreutils) 4.5.2
> Written by David MacKenzie.
> date: invalid date `1969-12-31'
> I expected output something like like "Wed Dec 31 00:00:00 EST 1969",
> not "invalid date".
> All dates before 1970-01-01 that I have tried seem to produce "invalid
> date"; all dates after 1970-01-01 that I have tried produce the output
> I expect.
I suspect that you'll find that all dates before 1970 fail and that all
dates after Mon Jan 19 04:14:07 2038 (GMT) also fail.
Why are you reporting this as a bug against glibc? That's how time_t
works. Search google for "time_t" and "epoch" for more information.
Closing this bug.
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
