[Buildroot] [PATCH v2 09/15] fakedate: new package

["Jérôme Pouiller" <jezz@sysmic.org>]

On Saturday 19 November 2016 14:26:40 Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> 
> On 19-11-16 14:06, J?r?me Pouiller wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 November 2016 11:21:39 Arnout Vandecappelle wrote:
> >> On 18-11-16 10:10, J?r?me Pouiller wrote:
[...]
> >>  Note that this pattern will also match something
> >> like -rfrood, i.e. --reference=frood. Fixing that becomes tricky without regexp.
> > 
> > hmmm... yes, it matches -rfrood (and it is what we want), but it does not
> > match --reference=frood, isn't?
> 
>  -rfrood and --reference=frood are the same thing, so no, we don't want it to
> match -rfrood.

Ok, I get the point.


> >>  Anyway, the -d option doesn't really need to be checked. 'date -d foo -d bar'
> >> will ignore the first -d, so things work OK. It's just that you get the spurious
> >> warning. So we could limit to checking -f, and limit to -f|--file=*). In that
> >> case, if someone passes something like -uf we'll get an error and the build will
> >> most likely terminate, so that particular error can be fixed.
> > 
> > You are right. However, since it may produce unexpected situation, I
> > prefer to identify precisely the cases where fakedate is used. 
> 
>  I would also prefer that, but I don't think it's possible without relying on
> regex. This could work:
> 
> if echo "$i" | grep -qE '^-([urI]*d|-date|[urI]*f|-file)'; then

It begins to be complex, but I do not see better ways.


> I notice now that you forgot a pattern for 'date --date yesterday' - that one is
> handled as well by the regex above.
> 
> > 
> > [...]
> >>> +            ;;
> >>> +        esac
> >>> +    done
> >>> +    if [ $INHIBIT -eq 0 ]; then
> >>> +        echo "date: Warning: using \$SOURCE_DATE_EPOCH instead of true time" >&2
> >>
> >>  Is it really needed to print this warning?
> > 
> > From user point of view, result of `date' when fakedate is installed
> > is unexpected. I prefer to warn.
> 
>  I'm just worried that it might confuse some script that captures stderr and
> tries to do something with it.

I suggest to keep it until we find a script that captures stderr.

-- 
J?r?me Pouiller, Sysmic
Embedded Linux specialist
http://www.sysmic.fr