This is the mail archive of the libc-alpha@sourceware.org mailing list for the glibc project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
On 10 Apr 2016 21:23, J William Piggott wrote: > On 04/10/2016 01:40 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > the `date` command will default to the LC_TIME.date_fmt field. it does > > this by looking up nl_langinfo(_DATE_FMT) (iff _DATE_FMT is defined). > > if that isn't available, it falls back to the default: > > %a %b %e %H:%M:%S %Z %Y > > this is required by POSIX for the POSIX locale, but works generally too. > > http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/date.html#tag_20_30_10 > > > > the GNU coreutils date code lives here (as does all this logic): > > http://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/coreutils.git/tree/src/date.c > > > > the LC_TIME.date_fmt was first added to glibc here: > > https://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/2000-10/msg00298.html > > https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=d8337213c83c3bd4aa32e16669745dd7ee32b329 > > > > it quoted the XPG4 standard for the background. i haven't been able to > > locate that old standard, but all the ones i do have access to (SuSv2 > > and newer) do not mention _date_fmt or date_fmt anywhere that i can find. > > > > we get a steady stream of complaints (some in our bugzilla, but via other > > sources as well like the mailing list or distro users) that the output of > > `date` does not match their expectations. in the end, they end up saying > > that want something that looks very much like `date +%c` which is what the > > LC_TIME.d_t_fmt field is set to. > > > > so what should we do here ? we provide 0 guidance to locale writers which > > means we get inconsistent behavior across locales. options: > > (1) punt date_fmt entirely (so `date` uses the POSIX default everywhere) > > That will not satisfy the complaints requesting %c. while true, it makes it "not our problem" anymore. we don't export DATE_FMT which means any complaints that come to us wrt `date` we redirect to the people actually implementing `date`. it seems odd that the C library would even be dictating exact formats for single system utilities in the first place. the date_fmt field is not used by any thing else. -mike
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |