GNU bug report logs - #14622
gdate

Previous Next

Full log

Message #10 received at control <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)]

Previous Next

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