[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
> Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > + * tests/touch/relative: For 'ls' use TZ=UTC0, not TZ=utc (which isn't
> > + portable).
>
> OOC, is "TZ=UTC" portable?
TZ=UTC is not portable, but TZ=UTC0 has been standardized by POSIX for
many years, and is
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
>
>> This is still not quite right on systems with TAI clocks.
>
> Good point. Also, I notice that only the first part of my previous
> patch was installed; presumably this is a typo? Anyway, here's a
> patch to the la
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> + * tests/touch/relative: For 'ls' use TZ=UTC0, not TZ=utc (which isn't
> + portable).
OOC, is "TZ=UTC" portable?
paul
___
Bug-coreutils mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listi
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Jarc) writes:
> This is still not quite right on systems with TAI clocks.
Good point. Also, I notice that only the first part of my previous
patch was installed; presumably this is a typo? Anyway, here's a
patch to the latest CVS snapshot that I have.
Index: ChangeLog
=
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2004-01-19 Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> * tests/touch/relative: Use TZ=UTC0, not TZ=utc (which isn't
> portable). Problem reported by Christian Krackowizer. Also, use
> + rather than +0 to specify a time zone, as the document
Paul Eggert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Christian Krackowizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> OSF 3.2C fails:
>>
>> out exp differ: char 13, line 1
>> 1c1
>> < 2004-01-16T05:56:38
>> ---
>> > 2004-01-16T04:56:38
>> FAIL: relative
>
> Most likely this is due to a bug in the new test script, as it
