On 2012-03-01 09:04, Otavio Salvador wrote:
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?
Yes, I believe so. I'll work up the patch and test it now.
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Thomas | Consulting for the
MLB Associates | Embedded world
------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Openembedded-core mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
