Re: Sorting by date

2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? First, pre-process the original to use ISO-standard date format: %Y-%m-%d. That's 4-digit year, dash, 2-digit month, dash, 2-digit day. Now, (LC_ALL=C sort< input.pp> output.pp) will give

Re: Sorting by date

b 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > > > How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? Assuming static data which you've got to process via standard tools, and you can't change the date / data format: sort -k3nr,3 -k1Mr

Re: Sorting by date

.02.11.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > > > How could I get the output where the newest file is at the top? First, pre-process the original to use ISO-standard date format: %Y-%m-%d. That's 4-digit year, dash, 2-digit month, dash, 2-digit day. Now, (LC_ALL=C sort

Re: Sorting by date

On 02/28/2011 02:35 PM, erikmccaskey64 wrote: Original: Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.2

Re: Sorting by date

On Mon, Feb 28, 2011 at 12:35:26PM -0800, erikmccaskey64 wrote: > > Original: > Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi > Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi > Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi > Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi > Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi > Feb 2

Sorting by date

Original: Jan 23 2011 10:42 SOMETHING 2007.12.20.avi Jun 26 2009 SOMETHING 2009.06.25.avi Feb 12 2010 SOMETHING 2010.02.11.avi Jan 29 2011 09:17 SOMETHING 2011.01.27.avi Feb 11 2011 20:06 SOMETHING 2011.02.10.avi Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011.02.24.avi Output: Feb 27 2011 23:05 SOMETHING 2011

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

Hello, Johan Grönqvist a écrit : > 2011-02-15 22:46, Kelly Dean skrev: >> http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was >> published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. >> Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel >> fixed, or does

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

On 2011-02-15, Kelly Dean wrote: > http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published > Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses > 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have > the vulnerability? My interpr

Re: How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

2011-02-15 22:46, Kelly Dean skrev: http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have the vulnerability? To begin with: I

How up-to-date is Debian's stable release kept to fix published kernel security vulnerabilities?

http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-2943 was published Sept 30, 2010, and says that Linux 2.6.32.5 is vulnerable. Squeeze uses 2.6.32-5, built on Jan 12, 2011. Is Squeeze's kernel fixed, or does it have the vulnerability? http://security-tracker.debian.org/tracker/status/re

Re: Squeeze release date according to distrowatch

On 02/05/2011 01:10 PM, Rémi Letot wrote: Mark Panen writes: Hi, A few days ago i read on distrowatch that squeeze will be released on the 6h Feb, can't find the article now again. Is this true? Happening right now: http://identi.ca/debian Hi http://planet.debian.net/ http://news.debian

Re: Squeeze release date according to distrowatch

Mark Panen writes: > Hi, > > A few days ago i read on distrowatch that squeeze will be released on > the 6h Feb, can't find the article now again. > > Is this true? Happening right now: http://identi.ca/debian -- Rémi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a

Re: Squeeze release date according to distrowatch

On Sat, Feb 05, 2011 at 01:51:43PM +0200, Mark Panen wrote: > A few days ago i read on distrowatch that squeeze will be released on > the 6h Feb, can't find the article now again. > > Is this true? The release of squeeze is planned for this weekend so yes it is. -- Med venlig hilsen / Best rega

Re: Squeeze release date according to distrowatch

Hello Mark, you may want to read the news: http://www.debian.org/News/weekly/2011/02/ Jerome On 05/02/11 12:51, Mark Panen wrote: Hi, A few days ago i read on distrowatch that squeeze will be released on the 6h Feb, can't find the article now again. Is this true? Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIB

Squeeze release date according to distrowatch

Hi, A few days ago i read on distrowatch that squeeze will be released on the 6h Feb, can't find the article now again. Is this true? Mark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive:

Re: OT: Output from date command - my little backup script

On 16 January 2011 17:34, Bob Proulx wrote: > Adrian Levi wrote: >>     if [ $backuplevel -eq 0] > > You are missing a space after the 0 and before the ] and I am hoping > that is simply an email glitch.  But you must have a space there. > >    if [ $backuplevel -eq 0 ] Thanks Bob, That fixed it

Re: OT: Output from date command - my little backup script

Adrian Levi wrote: > Is the output from the date command a string or integer wrt date +%w? The date command only produces string output. %w produces one of the characters 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. > I'm trying to test a condition in my backup script where i want to > match on d

OT: Output from date command - my little backup script

Is the output from the date command a string or integer wrt date +%w? I'm trying to test a condition in my backup script where i want to match on day of week = 0 The program flow I am trying to achieve is" If the file exists and the day of the week is 0 then remove the file and set

Re: being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

On Wed January 5 2011 20:31:44 Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > > mgb-deb...@yosemite.net : > >Undoing the damage done by insserv is possible but non-trivial. > > So... let's just "work for some years" and it will be better. Non-trivial as in a few days of work (mostly testing), not years. --Mike

Re: being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

> mgb-deb...@yosemite.net : >Undoing the damage done by insserv is possible but non-trivial. So... let's just "work for some years" and it will be better. -- RMA. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian

Re: being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

On Wed January 5 2011 15:29:53 Arthur Machlas wrote: > You keep asserting that 'years of DD work have been thrown away'. You > do realise the ordering is still there, right? It's now in the LSB > headers rather than the scripts numbering scheme. That is not correct. The LSB header ordering is wea

Re: being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Mike Bird wrote: > On Wed January 5 2011 13:37:59 Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: >> > mgb-deb...@yosemite.net : >> > The issue is that insserv throws away >> > years of work by Debian Developers, >> >> That is not always bad. >> Computers have improved during the la

Re: being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

On Wed January 5 2011 13:37:59 Mihamina Rakotomandimby wrote: > > mgb-deb...@yosemite.net : > > The issue is that insserv throws away > > years of work by Debian Developers, > > That is not always bad. > Computers have improved during the last years, why not their OSes? > > compiz, upstart, lxc,...

being up to date (Was: insserv + apache2 + bind9 = pain)

> mgb-deb...@yosemite.net : > The issue is that insserv throws away > years of work by Debian Developers, That is not always bad. Computers have improved during the last years, why not their OSes? compiz, upstart, lxc,... are "modern" tools for modern use :-) --

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Just saw your message by chance. I read this list only on gmane. Replying to ML now. On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 11:30 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Doesn't the scanning software at least set the digitization time to the > time at which you scanned the photos in? Yes, it does. But that is of no use to

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Stephan Seitz wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it is ISO date format. Oh, also: Yes, but the ISO date format is f

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/03/2010 10:28 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Stephan Seitz wrote: On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: ... That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read the ISO date format. Only if you know, it i

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

7;%Y' and has 3 spaces, but not is the > same > order is appropriate. > > That's just my gut feeling though. It's a local(e) thing, so I can only > really speak for en...@arkansas. Unfortunately ls is going against the locale here: ,[ /usr/share/i18n/ro_RO

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: >> On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: >> >>> From SUSv3: >>> "The field shall contain the appropriate date and >>> timestamp of >>> when the file

Re: date bug?

Tom Furie writes: > We need a new calendar system... This _has_ been discussed: -- John Hasler -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 15:23:11 Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > From SUSv3: > > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and > > timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the > >

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/01/2010 03:23 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: From SUSv3: "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp of when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the equivalent of the output o

Re: date bug?

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 14:32:26 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 06/01/2010 01:41 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > (It may > > not be entirely friendly, but any other behavior will be hard to reason > > about because of inconsistencies.) > > That's why whomever came up with the complete idiocy of bre

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Ma, 01 iun 10, 13:56:12, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > From SUSv3: > "The field shall contain the appropriate date and timestamp > of > when the file was last modified. In the POSIX locale, the field shall be the > equivalent of the output of the following date com

Re: date bug?

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 02:32:26PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > That's why whomever came up with the complete idiocy of breaking up 52 > weeks into 12 irregularly-sized months, days starting in the middle of > the night and years in the middle of winter, should br brought behind the > barn and fl

Re: date bug?

On Jun 1, 2010, at 3:32 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: That's why whomever came up with the complete idiocy of breaking up 52 weeks into 12 irregularly-sized months, days starting in the middle of the night and years in the middle of winter, should br brought behind the barn and flayed alive. Gi

Re: date bug?

On 06/01/2010 01:41 PM, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: [snip] Section 6.30, General Rule 6b of the same document reads: "If, after the preceding step, any of the result is outside the permissible range of values for the field or the result is invalid based on the natural rules for dates and tim

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Tue, Jun 01, 2010 at 10:58:09AM -0400, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: For me dd mmm is very clear ... Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? Then I can always use „env LANG=C ls -l”. That's why the ISO date formats are numeric:

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sunday 30 May 2010 00:58:59 Brian Marshall wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > > > has ch

Re: date bug?

On Monday 31 May 2010 13:23:30 Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/31/2010 12:44 PM, Camaleón wrote: > > On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:34:12 +, T o n g wrote: > >> Please take a look at the following, do you think it is bug of date? > >> $ date --date='next month&#x

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Ma, 01 iun 10, 10:58:09, Daniel Barclay wrote: > Andrei Popescu wrote: > > >For me dd mmm is very clear ... > > Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? I think in such a case the output of ls will be the lesser of my problems ;) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic di

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 01/06/10 12:14 PM, Ron Johnson wrote: > > jhead -n%Y%m%d-%H%M%S *.JPG > > It reads the date/time stamp from a pic's Exif header and then renames > the file. ...... Not applicable if there is no exif da

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/01/2010 10:06 AM, Daniel Barclay wrote: Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 06/01/2010 10:18 AM, H.S. wrote: On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote: Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as "2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a very well organized fit :-) Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO d

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 31/05/10 05:38 AM, Camaleón wrote: > > Besides, I also tend to name the files and folders as > "2010-05-31_filename" and so on, they keep my mind (and my computer) in a > very well organized fit :-) Totally agree. This is one of the main uses of ISO date format

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Ron Johnson wrote: On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: [snip] You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Andrei Popescu wrote: ... You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Andrei Popescu wrote: For me dd mmm is very clear ... Even when the month abbreviation is in a language you don't know? That's why the ISO date formats are numeric: As long as one uses [whatever the right name for our Arabic-digit-based decimal system is], one can read th

Re: date bug?

On 05/31/2010 12:44 PM, Camaleón wrote: On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:34:12 +, T o n g wrote: Please take a look at the following, do you think it is bug of date? (...) $ date --date='next month' Thu Jul 1 11:07:31 EDT 2010 I was hoping to get June. But June has not "

Re: date bug?

On Mon, 31 May 2010 17:34:12 +, T o n g wrote: > Please take a look at the following, do you think it is bug of date? (...) > $ date --date='next month' > Thu Jul 1 11:07:31 EDT 2010 > > I was hoping to get June. But June has not "31 days" so the clos

date bug?

Hi, Please take a look at the following, do you think it is bug of date? $ date Mon May 31 13:26:13 EDT 2010 $ date --date='1 month ago' Sat May 1 13:24:20 EDT 2010 $ date --date='last month' Sat May 1 11:09:21 EDT 2010 $ date --date='-1 month' Sat May

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 05/31/2010 01:39 AM, Camaleón wrote: On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote: (...) This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

* On 2010 31 May 04:39 -0500, Camaleón wrote: > Worst is that, inside my company, there are people still using just two > digits for the year, something like "31/05/10" (it reads 31st May, 2010). > Woow, sir, for sure is confusing (I ask them, "hey, what will happen in > year 3010? >:-)") and th

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Mon, 31 May 2010 12:07:54 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Lu, 31 mai 10, 06:39:15, Camaleón wrote: > >> And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of >> the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale >> is" i

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

> > really like to know)? > > You got it :-) > > That can only be read as "3rd May, 2010". > > And that is precisely the gain of the ISO date format over the rest of > the other alternatives: nodoby has to ask -or guess- "what your locale > is"

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Mon, 31 May 2010 01:51:14 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. > > You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format > i

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 05/30/2010 05:51 PM, Andrei Popescu wrote: [snip] You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 05/30/2010 06:21 PM, Brian Marshall wrote: On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may?

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

.. > For me dd mmm is very clear, but I don't like the suppressing of > the current year either :( I see what you mean. Any date format that only uses numbers risks confusing the user about which number is the month and which is the day. The point of using an international standar

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun,30.May.10, 16:21:26, Brian Marshall wrote: > On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg > > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg > > > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun,30.May.10, 12:04:47, Brian Marshall wrote: > On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > > english, "Mai 30 2010". > > That lo

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 01:51:14AM +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg > -rwx-- 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg > > Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd > really like to know)? I've n

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

l one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. > > "May 16", the same. > > "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. > > "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be > (future date), then it must be 2009.

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 21:17, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > >> Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" >> has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 >> 20:00) but

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > english, "Mai 30 2010". That looks like a bug in the pt_PT.UTF-8 locale. de_DE.UTF-8 gets it

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:55 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. >> >> > Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me! Oh. I'll take tha

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, Why

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: >> >> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date >> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization >> madness, > >

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

o the good old ways. It seems, upstream is now thinking again, that the localized output is the better one. Thus is the beauty of choice and FLOSS, since I *want* ISO format and frequently use it's regularized date format in filters. -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 10:58:59PM -0700, Brian Marshall wrote: Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make The new default was the default years ago. Then it was changed to the ISO format output. Since then I hated it. The ISO format is wasting to much space and is mo

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: > > Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date > representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by the user a

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sunday 30 May 2010 10:44:38 Nuno Magalhães wrote: > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > english, "Mai 30 2010". Erratum: American or American English. English English is also not represented

ISO date format (was: ls has stopped using the ISO date format)

On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:01:25 +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-05-30 10:44 (+0100), Nuno Magalhães wrote: > >> +1 for ISO as default > >> Is there a way to push things into changing back? > > Use TIME_STYLE=long-iso or contact the GNU coreutils upstream. It seems not working for Midnight C

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On 05/29/2010 11:17 PM, Teemu Likonen wrote: [snip] Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE environment variable, like this: export TIME_STYLE=long-iso Another method is the --time-style option. For example: $ alias dir='ls -aFl --time-style=+"%F %T"'

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

* 2010-05-30 10:44 (+0100), Nuno Magalhães wrote: > +1 for ISO as default > Is there a way to push things into changing back? Use TIME_STYLE=long-iso or contact the GNU coreutils upstream. First search their mailing list archives for related discussions: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bu

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:19, Camaleón wrote: > Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date > representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization madness, > so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date standard. +1 for ISO as de

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:04:59 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote: >> >> Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make >> sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or >> U

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

d because the width of the date column is not fixed. In practice TIME_STYLE=locale is not usable at all (with "ls -l"). $ LC_TIME=fi_FI.UTF-8 TIME_STYLE=locale /bin/ls -l / total 101 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 30.1. 21:55 bin drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 1024 25.5. 20:33 boot lrwxrwx

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sat,29.May.10, 22:58:59, Brian Marshall wrote: > > Any idea why the default was changed? I guess it didn't really make > sense to change the date format based on whether it was an ISO-8859 or > UTF-8 locale? (en_US.ISO-8859, to my knowledge, has always used the date > for

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 07:17:31AM +0300, Teemu Likonen wrote: > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > > > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 >

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

* 2010-05-30 07:17 (+0300), Teemu Likonen wrote: > Related tips here: Here's a better link which points to the Debian Reference manual: http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/debian-reference/debian-reference.en.html#_customized_display_of_time_and_date -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ

Re: ls has stopped using the ISO date format

* 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" > has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 > 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May

ls has stopped using the ISO date format

Hi all, Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" if it's not the current year. My l

Re: Thunderbird's WebMail addon (used together with `-Hotmail' extension of it) download sometimes all the e-mails since some date, even if they have already been retrieved at another period

On Thu,20.May.10, 06:03:13, Phil Requirements wrote: > But then a magical thing happened and Microsoft started having a > POP3 service for hotmail accounts. Was that at about the same time Gmail was launched? >:-) Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http:

Re: Thunderbird's WebMail addon (used together with `-Hotmail' extension of it) download sometimes all the e-mails since some date, even if they have already been retrieved at another period

On 2010-05-18 22:16:57 +0200, tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > Le 18/05/2010 21:30, Merciadri Luca wrote: > >some add-ons, such as `WebMail'. This add-on lets it fetch your e-mails > >from mail servers only dealing with special protocols (not as POP, IMAP, > >etc.). I use it together with `WebMail

Re: Thunderbird's WebMail addon (used together with `-Hotmail' extension of it) download sometimes all the e-mails since some date, even if they have already been retrieved at another period

tv.deb...@googlemail.com wrote: > Le 18/05/2010 21:30, Merciadri Luca wrote: >> Hi, >> >> As explained in the title, I am using Icedove 2.0.0.22 (20090706) with >> some add-ons, such as `WebMail'. This add-on lets it fetch your e-mails >> from mail servers only dealing with special protocols (not a

Re: Thunderbird's WebMail addon (used together with `-Hotmail' extension of it) download sometimes all the e-mails since some date, even if they have already been retrieved at another period

Le 18/05/2010 21:30, Merciadri Luca wrote: Hi, As explained in the title, I am using Icedove 2.0.0.22 (20090706) with some add-ons, such as `WebMail'. This add-on lets it fetch your e-mails from mail servers only dealing with special protocols (not as POP, IMAP, etc.). I use it together with `We

Thunderbird's WebMail addon (used together with `-Hotmail' extension of it) download sometimes all the e-mails since some date, even if they have already been retrieved at another period

Hi, As explained in the title, I am using Icedove 2.0.0.22 (20090706) with some add-ons, such as `WebMail'. This add-on lets it fetch your e-mails from mail servers only dealing with special protocols (not as POP, IMAP, etc.). I use it together with `WebMail -Hotmail', that is, to check my Hotmail

Re: Put date on log file names?

Hi! * vr wrote: > I'd like to have the date in the file names so visually I'll know > what span is in each file. > > Can this be done? (put dates into the file name) Depends. See the other posts about logrotate > Should this be done? (put the date into the file name) N

Re: Put date on log file names?

vr wrote: Due to message volume, I'm considering rotating my mail logs daily at my local time "midnight" and retaining about 30 days worth of files on disk. I'd like to have the date in the file names so visually I'll know what span is in each file. Can this be

Re: Put date on log file names?

On Mon, 17 May 2010 13:59:02 -0400, vr wrote: > Due to message volume, I'm considering rotating my mail logs daily at my > local time "midnight" and retaining about 30 days worth of files on > disk. I'd like to have the date in the file names so visually I'l

Put date on log file names?

Due to message volume, I'm considering rotating my mail logs daily at my local time "midnight" and retaining about 30 days worth of files on disk. I'd like to have the date in the file names so visually I'll know what span is in each file. Can this be done? (put

Re: Install date

On Wed, 10 Feb 2010 19:56:48 -0500 (EST), Tim Tebbit wrote: > > Is there a file generated with a time stamp that would show the age of > the current install somewhere? > Follow this thread. The answer is in there somewhere. http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2010/01/msg02226.html -- To UNSU

Re: Install date

Tim Tebbit wrote: Is there a file generated with a time stamp that would show the age of the current install somewhere? Look at the time/date stamp for your most resent image file in /boot. ls -l /boot mine is dated the date I did my last upgrade to Lenny. mtp5150 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email

Re: Install date

Neal Hogan wrote: > On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tim Tebbit wrote: >> Is there a file generated with a time stamp that would show the age of >> the current install somewhere? >> >> > > /var/log/dmesg > > >> -- >> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org >> with a subjec

Re: Install date

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Tim Tebbit wrote: > Is there a file generated with a time stamp that would show the age of > the current install somewhere? > > /var/log/dmesg > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contac

Install date

Is there a file generated with a time stamp that would show the age of the current install somewhere? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >