On Wed, 1 Jun 2005, Rainer Zocholl (RZ) wrote:
RZ> date -u -d '1970-01-01 946684800 seconds' +"%Y-%m-%d %T %z"
RZ> 2000-01-01 00:00:00 +0000
RZ>
RZ>
RZ> I don't see why this is a "cheat" (= not intended way of usesage)
they could have implemented a thing like
date -d "946684800"
THEN it would be intended. it would take the _unique_ point in time
946684800 and print it as a string corresponding to this _unique_ point in
time. The output would of course depend on your time zone or the option
-u. But the input would not, since it is time zone independant.
as you can see on your own examples, the way it is implemented now
_does_not_ convert the _unique_ point in time 1117634400 to the human
readable format of this _unique_ point in time.
RZ> The man page example is missleading.
RZ> date will interpret the "1970-01-01" with the current timezone...
RZ>
RZ> It must read:
RZ> # date -d "1970-01-01 UTC 1117634400 sec"
RZ> Wed Jun 1 16:00:00 CEST 2005
RZ> as the "-utc" relates to output.
RZ> # date -u -d "1970-01-01 UTC 1117634400 sec"
RZ> Wed Jun 1 14:00:00 UTC 2005
on the first sight, the option -u only changes the output, BUT it also
changes the assumed timezone if no timezone is given.
so
date -u -d "1970-01-01 UTC 1117634400 sec"
date -u -d "1970-01-01 1117634400 sec"
are the same:
Wed Jun 1 14:00:00 UTC 2005
which is correct:
date +%s -d "Wed Jun 1 14:00:00 UTC 2005"
1117634400
RZ> But i still do not undestand why here is a 1h offset
RZ> if nothing is given.
RZ> I would assuem that the timezone would be komensated
RZ> # date -d "1970-01-01 1117634400 sec"
RZ> Wed Jun 1 15:00:00 CEST 2005
and you will never know, if you don't know which time zone "date"
assumes in the input.
Sergei
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------- -?)
eMail: Sergei.Haller@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx /\\
-------------------------------------------------------------------- _\_V
Be careful of reading health books, you might die of a misprint.
-- Mark Twain
