On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:52, Gary Thomas <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2012-03-01 08:44, Richard Purdie wrote: >> Is this going to cause us a problem in real world usage? I'd hope in the >> general case we use standard formatting? >> >> I have to admit I'm getting more than a little frustrated with what >> seems like a continual set of changes bouncing this format around in >> different directions :(. > > I agree and I'm sorry I missed this in my first change - I was just > trying to make the time stamps be consistent. > > As far as I can recall (which is a really long time), 'date' has always > wanted the format MMDDHHmm[YYYY], so I think that's what we should expect. > That format doesn't compare easily which is why the timestamp was changed > (not by me) to a more ISO standard YYYYMMDDHHmm. If busybox has 64-bit > math enabled, then this can be compared with no problems, it just has > to be munged into the format 'date' wants.
So we can have compat and 64-bit math and have it properly behaving? -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
