On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 11:19:11PM +0200, Mike Dornberger wrote:
> Hi,
 
Hi -

> On Thu, Apr 21, 2005 at 02:08:46PM -0400, Benjamin A. Okopnik wrote:
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# hwclock --set --date="04-21-2005 13:58:00"
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~# hwclock
> > Sat Feb 26 13:58:05 2011  -0.675597 seconds
> 
> > When '-' is used as the date delimiter, 'hwclock' sets some weird future
> > day, month, and year - without any warning. It should either a) use the
> > option correctly, or b) fail with an error message.
> 
> man hwclock refers to date(1), which prints the same date/time given
> --date"04-...". I think the expected form with dashes is [yy]yy-mm-dd (IIRC
> it's some ISO norm).
 
Ah - I see what you mean. It seems like both 'hwclock' and 'date' should
require a '--iso' option (or something like that) to use that format;
having it produce a result that's wildly different from the obviously
expected one - and several people to whom I've spoken about it have
_all_ run into a problem with this - seems really wrong.

> Though "info date" states, that month should be 1-12 and day 1-31, it's no
> error giving bigger values. Maybe it is some glibc feature.

Heh. That's the alternate spelling of 'bug', I believe?

> It seems, there
> are 21 month added to 2004-01-01 and then 2005 days, but I can't reproduce
> the exact date (Feb 26 2011) myself (i.e. no "date") yet.

------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ date --date="04-21-2005 13:58:00"
Sat Feb 26 13:58:00 EST 2011
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ date --version
date (coreutils) 5.2.1
Written by David MacKenzie.
------------------------------------------------

Yep, seems to be repeatable. I guess it's a bug against 'glibc' -
although both 'hwclock' and date _should_ have an option to
differentiate between these two (very subtle but with a large difference
in the result) options.


Sincere regards,
* Ben Okopnik * Editor-in-Chief, Linux Gazette * http://linuxgazette.net *


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to