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 recent
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
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
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
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:27, Gary Thomas g...@mlbassoc.com 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
On 2012-03-01 09:04, Otavio Salvador wrote:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:52, Gary Thomasg...@mlbassoc.com 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
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
