On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 11:59:59AM -0500, J William Piggott wrote:
> You do realize that I had to heavily modify that file to remove its
> gnulib dependencies (because you said no to gnulib). If I recall
I know, this is why we keep it in the tree (and thanks for all the
work!).
> correctly I had newer and older versions to chose from and picked that
> one due to it having the most bugs fixed while still being practical to
> strip its gnulib dependence.
>
> The reasons for making the change were:
> * remove hwclock's dependence on date(1)
> * remove an insecure call to date(1)
> * I thought there would be to many complaints if the accepted input
> date formats were changed
>
> As to the last bullet point; personally I think having the --date option
> accept every date syntax know to history is nonsense.
Yes, I agree it's probably overkill.
> Or you could just use the existing utillinux date parser.
This is what I have implemented for --disable-hwclock-gplv3 to have
anything ASAP for the next 2.35.1 update... Maybe we can make it the
default for the next release v2.36 and later remove the gnulib code at
all.
> The question is, do you want to deal with any pushback for
> changing the long established accepted --date formats?
IMHO the existing utillinux date parser is good enough, but I have no
clue how people use --date.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
