Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Lauri Hintsala
On 03/01/2012 06:06 PM, Gary Thomas wrote: As far as I can recall (which is a really long time), 'date' has always wanted the format MMDDHHmm[], 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 standar

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2012-03-01 09:04, Otavio Salvador wrote: On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:52, Gary Thomas 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 lit

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:52, Gary Thomas 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 l

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Otavio Salvador
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:27, Gary Thomas wrote: > I think the best thing would be to turn CONFIG_FEATURE_DATE_COMPAT back > on along with my reformatting change. > > I can make an updated patch if you agree. This is indeed the better solution. Please send an updated patch in meanwhile so Richar

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2012-03-01 08:44, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 08:27 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: On 2012-03-01 08:11, Gary Thomas wrote: On 2012-03-01 07:59, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:43 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /et

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Richard Purdie
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 08:27 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: > On 2012-03-01 08:11, Gary Thomas wrote: > > On 2012-03-01 07:59, Richard Purdie wrote: > >> On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:43 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: > >>> Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /etc/timestamp > >>> In particular

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2012-03-01 08:11, Gary Thomas wrote: On 2012-03-01 07:59, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:43 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /etc/timestamp In particular 5aab665 initscripts: Make /etc/timestamp consistent again. 173a48f image.

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Gary Thomas
On 2012-03-01 07:59, Richard Purdie wrote: On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:43 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /etc/timestamp In particular 5aab665 initscripts: Make /etc/timestamp consistent again. 173a48f image.bbclass: Ensure timestamp matches f

Re: [OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Richard Purdie
On Thu, 2012-03-01 at 07:43 -0700, Gary Thomas wrote: > Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /etc/timestamp > In particular > 5aab665 initscripts: Make /etc/timestamp consistent again. > 173a48f image.bbclass: Ensure timestamp matches format used in initscripts > after recen

[OE-core] [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

2012-03-01 Thread Gary Thomas
Recent changes have attempted to make consistant use of /etc/timestamp In particular 5aab665 initscripts: Make /etc/timestamp consistent again. 173a48f image.bbclass: Ensure timestamp matches format used in initscripts after recent changes This new format can cause problems as the value is to