[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

bug#14622: gdate

From: Eric Blake
Subject: bug#14622: gdate
Date: Sat, 15 Jun 2013 11:07:52 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130514 Thunderbird/17.0.6

tag 14622 moreinfo

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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]