On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote: > The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: > > s...@stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME > LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" > > s...@stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF > > "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it > should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. > > "May 16", the same. > > "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. > > "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be > (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... I haven't read the manpage, but it seems like a bug.
> Let's try with the long iso format: > > s...@stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso > > s...@stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF > > This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx------ 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx------ 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
