Re: [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format

[Gary Thomas <gary@mlbassoc.com>]

On 2012-03-01 09:04, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:52, Gary Thomas<gary@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 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
------------------------------------------------------------