This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PING^3] RFC [PATCH] BZ#1077902: New API gettimezone
- From: Paul Eggert <eggert at cs dot ucla dot edu>
- To: P J P <pj dot pandit at yahoo dot co dot in>, "libc-alpha at sourceware dot org" <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 29 May 2014 06:55:08 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PING^3] RFC [PATCH] BZ#1077902: New API gettimezone
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <5361F22E dot 3070206 at redhat dot com> <53628A02 dot 9080702 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <53629388 dot 1060301 at redhat dot com> <53630B0C dot 1050305 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <53633A37 dot 7060405 at redhat dot com> <5363E223 dot 7060303 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <1399061963 dot 56150 dot YahooMailNeo at web192404 dot mail dot sg3 dot yahoo dot com> <1401211363 dot 50264 dot YahooMailNeo at web192402 dot mail dot sg3 dot yahoo dot com> <20140527180827 dot GA25042 at domone dot podge> <538533EB dot 3000501 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <20140528085726 dot GA975 at domone dot podge> <5385F400 dot 2070201 at cs dot ucla dot edu> <1401357566 dot 99673 dot YahooMailNeo at web192401 dot mail dot sg3 dot yahoo dot com>
P J P wrote:
"best fit" is application-dependent. glibc is not in a position to
>decide what the best fit is for a particular application.
Yes, application dependent. Scheduling applications, for example, are
more interested in times in the near future, whereas date-of-birth
applications are more interested in times in the medium-distant past.
They have different needs for the "best fit".
>Plus, "best fit" is a weird thing to ask for. Why would an
>application want an approximation to the TZ setting? Why wouldn't it want the real
Because application(s) can not access the tzdata files and have to depend on the value provided by 'TZ' variable. And 'TZ' variable can not accommodate entire contents of the tzdata file.
If the problem cannot easily be solved in glibc then let's be honest and
leave things alone, and let application developers continue to solve the
problem in the same simple and portable way that they've solved it for
decades. This is better than expending resources trying to come up with
a halfhearted approximation that could well cause more problems than