GNU bug report logs - #14622
gdate

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 14622 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 14622 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Lien, John" <johnl <at> ti.com>
To: "bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org" <bug-coreutils <at> gnu.org>
Subject: gdate
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 21:22:20 +0000

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

I tried following X86 version of "gdate", and it received different result as the 'gnudate", can you explain the difference? It seems that "gnudate: is correct.

Following "gdate" is running Solaris 5.10 on X86 UNIX host; "gnudate" is running on Solaris 5.8 on Sun-Fire_V240.

/usr/local/bin/gdate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
130614:094544

/usr/local/bin/gnudate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
130614:144644


Regards,
John Lien
Phone: (214)567-5844
Pager:  (214)882-7930

[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Message #8 received at 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
To: "Lien, John" <johnl <at> ti.com>
Cc: 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14622: gdate
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:07:52 +0100

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tag 14622 moreinfo
thanks

On 06/14/2013 10:22 PM, Lien, John wrote:
> I tried following X86 version of "gdate", and it received different result as the 'gnudate", can you explain the difference? It seems that "gnudate: is correct.
> 
> Following "gdate" is running Solaris 5.10 on X86 UNIX host; "gnudate" is running on Solaris 5.8 on Sun-Fire_V240.
> 
> /usr/local/bin/gdate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
> 130614:094544
> 
> /usr/local/bin/gnudate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
> 130614:144644

Most likely, the difference lies in the version of coreutils that you
are using.  Please also tell use 'gdate --version' and 'gnudate
--version'.  And remember that we have improved the parser over time, so
it may be that your gdate binary is from an older build that had a bug
fixed in the version compiled into your gnudate binary.  For example,
this NEWS entry for coreutils 6.9.90 looks like it might be relevant:

  date -d now accepts strings of the form e.g., 'YYYYMMDD +N days',
  in addition to the usual 'YYYYMMDD N days'.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #13 received at 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: "Lien, John" <johnl <at> ti.com>
To: Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Cc: "McFarland, Glenn" <glennmc <at> ti.com>,
 "14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: RE: bug#14622: gdate
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2013 13:02:25 +0000

Eric, it looks like "gdate" version is 6.4 and gnudate version is 1.16.

Regards,
John


d5lxfabappdev01z:/opt/auto/ gdate --version
date (GNU coreutils) 6.4
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software.  You may redistribute copies of it under the terms of
the GNU General Public License <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html>.
There is NO WARRANTY, to the extent permitted by law.

fabapps1:/opt/auto/ gnudate --version
date (GNU sh-utils) 1.16


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Blake [mailto:eblake <at> redhat.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 15, 2013 5:08 AM
To: Lien, John
Cc: 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#14622: gdate

tag 14622 moreinfo
thanks

On 06/14/2013 10:22 PM, Lien, John wrote:
> I tried following X86 version of "gdate", and it received different result as the 'gnudate", can you explain the difference? It seems that "gnudate: is correct.
> 
> Following "gdate" is running Solaris 5.10 on X86 UNIX host; "gnudate" is running on Solaris 5.8 on Sun-Fire_V240.
> 
> /usr/local/bin/gdate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
> 130614:094544
> 
> /usr/local/bin/gnudate --date '20130614 14:46:43 + 1 sec' '+%y%m%d:%H%M%S'
> 130614:144644

Most likely, the difference lies in the version of coreutils that you
are using.  Please also tell use 'gdate --version' and 'gnudate
--version'.  And remember that we have improved the parser over time, so
it may be that your gdate binary is from an older build that had a bug
fixed in the version compiled into your gnudate binary.  For example,
this NEWS entry for coreutils 6.9.90 looks like it might be relevant:

  date -d now accepts strings of the form e.g., 'YYYYMMDD +N days',
  in addition to the usual 'YYYYMMDD N days'.

-- 
Eric Blake   eblake redhat com    +1-919-301-3266
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org

Message #16 received at 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Jim Meyering <jim <at> meyering.net>
To: "Lien\, John" <johnl <at> ti.com>
Cc: "McFarland, Glenn" <glennmc <at> ti.com>,
 "14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>,
 Eric Blake <eblake <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Re: bug#14622: gdate
Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:15:59 +0200

Lien, John wrote:
> Eric, it looks like "gdate" version is 6.4 and gnudate version is 1.16.

Thanks for the follow-up.
That means Eric was right on the money.
Your 1.16 gnudate is from early 1997
and your gdate is from from October of 2006.
There have been many fixes and improvements since then.

Message #19 received at 14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Assaf Gordon <assafgordon <at> gmail.com>
Cc: "14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org" <14622 <at> debbugs.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: bug#14622: gdate
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2018 16:48:27 -0600

close 14622
stop

(triaging old bugs0

On 19/06/13 09:15 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Lien, John wrote:
>> Eric, it looks like "gdate" version is 6.4 and gnudate version is 1.16.
> 
> Thanks for the follow-up.
> That means Eric was right on the money.
> Your 1.16 gnudate is from early 1997
> and your gdate is from from October of 2006.
> There have been many fixes and improvements since then.
> 

With no further comments in 5 years, I'm closing this bug.

-assaf

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.