From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from hermes.mlbassoc.com ([64.234.241.98] helo=mail.chez-thomas.org) by linuxtogo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1S38eM-0002cp-JB for openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org; Thu, 01 Mar 2012 17:14:38 +0100 Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 1998) id 49D9DF812EF; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:06:10 -0700 (MST) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2 Received: from hermes.chez-thomas.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4674F812EE; Thu, 1 Mar 2012 09:06:08 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <4F4F9E70.7010807@mlbassoc.com> Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 09:06:08 -0700 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org References: <1330612994-26329-1-git-send-email-gary@mlbassoc.com> <1330613948.31767.12.camel@ted> <4F4F918B.4010404@mlbassoc.com> <4F4F9552.8040107@mlbassoc.com> <1330616672.31767.23.camel@ted> <4F4F9B21.3000407@mlbassoc.com> In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [PATCH] initscripts: Properly handle new timestamp format X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.11 Precedence: list Reply-To: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2012 16:14:38 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 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 ------------------------------------------------------------