On Sat, Oct 26, 2013 at 07:48:03PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 18:16:50 +0059 > > From: Jason McIntyre <j...@kerhand.co.uk> > > > > hi! > > > > further to another discussion on tech, i'm looking to document those > > options which posix say we should, but we do not. it should be only for > > a very small number of utilities, and pretty straightforward (famous > > last...) > > > > anyway, i wanted to post the date(1) part since it's a bit more > > controversial. posix lists this format as an xsi extension: > > > > mmddhhmm[[cc]yy] > > > > however we support this format: > > > > [[[[[cc]yy]mm]dd]HH]MM[.SS] > > > > just posting in case i've horribly misunderstood something. i'll commit, > > barring objection. > > I have to disagree with this change. It sounds too much like we're > making excuses. The XSI extensions are not really part of POSIX. > They're just part of the recent POSIX documents because X/Open and > POSIX were merged. X/Open has always bean biased towards System V, > and one of thereasons why the XSI extension option exists in the > current joint standard is that X/Open sometimes conflicts with > traditional BSD behaviour. > > So a better way to document this would be to say that we don't support > the XSI extension format > > mmddhhmm[[cc]yy] > > and instead supports the traditional BSD format > > [[[[[cc]yy]mm]dd]HH]MM[.SS] > > which is obviously superior. > > Cheers, > > Mark >
yes, fair point. how about the following: Index: date.1 =================================================================== RCS file: /cvs/src/bin/date/date.1,v retrieving revision 1.59 diff -u -r1.59 date.1 --- date.1 31 Aug 2011 08:48:40 -0000 1.59 +++ date.1 26 Oct 2013 18:30:23 -0000 @@ -224,6 +224,14 @@ The flags .Op Fl adjrtz are extensions to that specification. +.Pp +This implementation supports the traditional +.Bx +date format +.Dq ccyymmddHHMM.SS , +which differs from the +.St -xpg4 +specification. .Sh HISTORY A .Nm
