Discussion:
findutils 4.6.0 v. Tru64 (strftime() v. "%F"?)
Paul Eggert
2017-05-25 21:04:34 UTC
Permalink
So yes, either findutils should be using nstrftime() and not strftime()
(which will guarantee that these sequences work), or it is indeed time
to patch gnulib to provide a replacement strftime() on platforms that
are not POSIX-compliant (and then still patch findutils to use the newer
gnulib).
It's actually probably easier it findutils just starts using
nstrftime(), regardless of what else gnulib does, but it's at least
pointing out that gnulib should be documenting the known pitfalls in
native strftime() implementations.
Yes to changing findutils to use nstrftime, and to documenting strftime
gotchas in Gnulib.

Not sure if it's worth wasting people's time writing a replacement
strftime. nstrftime provides more functionality and should be more portable.
James Youngman
2017-07-23 21:25:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Eggert
So yes, either findutils should be using nstrftime() and not strftime()
(which will guarantee that these sequences work), or it is indeed time
to patch gnulib to provide a replacement strftime() on platforms that
are not POSIX-compliant (and then still patch findutils to use the newer
gnulib).
It's actually probably easier it findutils just starts using
nstrftime(), regardless of what else gnulib does, but it's at least
pointing out that gnulib should be documenting the known pitfalls in
native strftime() implementations.
Yes to changing findutils to use nstrftime, and to documenting strftime
gotchas in Gnulib.
Not sure if it's worth wasting people's time writing a replacement strftime.
nstrftime provides more functionality and should be more portable.
I'm OK with moving findutils to nstrftime. I'd need to update the
gnulib version so one which offers nstrftime (instead of the old name)
but it's a good idea to do that anyway.

However, there is a simple replacement for %F (%Y-%m-%d); do we
currently know of any other reason to move findutils to nstrftime?

James.
Bruno Haible
2017-07-23 23:32:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by James Youngman
I'd need to update the
gnulib version so one which offers nstrftime (instead of the old name)
This gnulib module is now called 'nstrftime'.

Bruno

Loading...