Re: findutils 4.6.0 v. Tru64 (strftime() v. "%F"?)

[James Youngman]

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 10:04 PM, Paul Eggert <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 05/25/2017 07:54 AM, Eric Blake wrote:
>>
>> So yes, either findutils should be using nstrftime() and not strftime()
>> (which will guarantee that these sequences work), or it is indeed time
>> to patch gnulib to provide a replacement strftime() on platforms that
>> are not POSIX-compliant (and then still patch findutils to use the newer
>> gnulib).
>>
>> It's actually probably easier it findutils just starts using
>> nstrftime(), regardless of what else gnulib does, but it's at least
>> pointing out that gnulib should be documenting the known pitfalls in
>> native strftime() implementations.
>
>
>
> Yes to changing findutils to use nstrftime, and to documenting strftime
> gotchas in Gnulib.
>
> Not sure if it's worth wasting people's time writing a replacement strftime.
> nstrftime provides more functionality and should be more portable.

I'm OK with moving findutils to nstrftime.   I'd need to update the
gnulib version so one which offers nstrftime (instead of the old name)
but it's a good idea to do that anyway.

However, there is a simple replacement for %F (%Y-%m-%d); do we
currently know of any other reason to move findutils to nstrftime?

James.