On Mon, 21 Jul 2014 08:41:06 +0200 Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 09:55:22AM +0400, Antony Pavlov wrote: > > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014 21:02:22 +0200 > > Holger Schurig <holgerschurig@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > I'd prefer a more logical format (and that is also in the help). > > > However, in this case I wouldn't name the command "hwclock", but maybe > > > "setclock". > > > > hwclock allows to use a logical format! > > > > e.g. here is a quote from hwclock manpage: > > > > --date=date_string > > You need this option if you specify the --set or --predict functions, otherwise > > it is ignored. It specifies the time to which to set the Hardware Clock, or the > > time for which to predict the Hardware Clock reading. The value of this option > > is an argument to the date(1) program. For example: > > > > hwclock --set --date="2011-08-14 16:45:05" > > Is this format easy enough to parse? If yes, that sounds like a good > format. So you have no objections on using a logical format :) I can make a small review on conventional date_string formats so we can discuss most appropriate one. -- Best regards, Antony Pavlov _______________________________________________ barebox mailing list barebox@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/barebox
