ls has stopped using the ISO date format
in [Debian]
|
Prev: Update GRUB to GRUB2 / Lenny to Squeeze
Next: Blockage on Internet maps - is a firewall intervening? Was: Re: PART DIAGNOSED: Re: Trying to install Google Earth on Lenny. How on earth??????
From: Ron Johnson on 30 May 2010 14:30 On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 18:59:47 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote: > >> On Sun,30.May.10, 09:19:03, Camaleón wrote: >>> >>> Having an option to change the default is very good, but ISO date >>> representation is there precisely to avoid the date localization >>> madness, >> >> Why "madness"? IMHO the *default* output should be easy to understand by >> the user and a localized date makes sense. > > No sir, the localized format it's a mess. > > The only date format understable by *any* user in the world is the ISO > format, we all should move to that. > >>> so I for one would also expect as default the using of ISO date >>> standard. >> >> Even if ISO is a standard, it's not the *usual* representation of a date >> for too many users to use it as a default. > > The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME > LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF > > "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it > should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. > > "May 16", the same. > > "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. > > "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be > (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... > > Let's try with the long iso format: > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF > > This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. > Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me! -- Dissent is patriotic, remember? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4C02ACFF.4080000(a)cox.net
From: Camaleón on 30 May 2010 14:50 On Sun, 30 May 2010 13:22:55 -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > On 05/30/2010 01:05 PM, Camaleón wrote: (...) >> This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. >> >> > Proof of your brilliance is that you think just like me! Oh. I'll take that as a "compliment". (He, he... just joking. That was a good one) ;-) Greetings, -- Camaleón -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pan.2010.05.30.18.41.41(a)gmail.com
From: Brian Marshall on 30 May 2010 15:10 On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 10:44:38AM +0100, Nuno Magalhães wrote: > In any case if locales were the reasoning, pt_PT.UTF-8 oughta be "30 > Mai 2010" or something when it's actually just a translation from > english, "Mai 30 2010". That looks like a bug in the pt_PT.UTF-8 locale. de_DE.UTF-8 gets it right with "30. Mai 2010", so ideally, the locales *should* be fully localized and not just translated. Brian
From: Kelly Clowers on 30 May 2010 18:30 On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 21:17, Teemu Likonen <tlikonen(a)iki.fi> wrote: > * 2010-05-29 20:25 (-0700), Brian Marshall wrote: > >> Recently, I noticed that the date format in the output from "ls -l" >> has changed in squeeze. Before, it used the ISO standard (2010-05-29 >> 20:00) but now it's started printing "May 29 20:00" or "May 29 2009" >> if it's not the current year. > >> I suspect it's coreutils' fault, because while the version of the >> locales package is about the same in Ubuntu and Debian (2.11 and >> 2.10), coreutils is significantly newer in Debian (8.5 compared to >> 7.4). >> >> Can anyone else confirm this issue? Is it a bug or a feature? How can >> I get ls to print the ISO date format again? > > Yes, the default has changed. You can change the default with TIME_STYLE > environment variable, like this: > >   export TIME_STYLE=long-iso I almost missed this thread, but it's a good thing I didn't. I had been using LC_TIME=en_DK.UTF-8 to get ISO format, but at some point that stopped working, and I couldn't figure out what had happened. And I have to agree with Camaleón and Ron that the ISO format is a lot less confusing. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST(a)lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(a)lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTilIA09sGRaPS3UVerrqchCJ7UgkP0hlOvpGNyt3(a)mail.gmail.com
From: Andrei Popescu on 30 May 2010 19:00
On Sun,30.May.10, 18:05:43, Camaleón wrote: > The usual representation is very fuzzy. Look: > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ locale | grep TIME > LC_TIME="es_ES.UTF-8" > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 may 29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 may 16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 nov 14 2009 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 dic 27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 abr 30 21:22 PDF > > "May 29"... from what year? Ah, o.k. as there is no year printed it > should be the actual one, and the actual year is 2010. Fine. > > "May 16", the same. > > "Nov 14"?... ah, o.k., it's printed 2009. > > "Dec 27"? oops, no "2009" printed? well, right, but 2010 cannot be > (future date), then it must be 2009. I hope... I haven't read the manpage, but it seems like a bug. > Let's try with the long iso format: > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ export TIME_STYLE=long-iso > > sm01(a)stt008:~$ ls -l > total 1 > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 728 2010-05-29 22:22 Desktop > drwxr-xr-x 9 sm01 sm01 240 2010-05-16 16:13 Documentos > drwx------ 3 sm01 sm01 72 2009-11-14 19:58 file: > drwxr-xr-x 2 sm01 sm01 48 2009-12-27 21:10 News > drwx------ 2 sm01 sm01 48 2010-04-30 21:22 PDF > > This way I have to think *less* to be sure about the date. No guessing. You example shows only dates where it is quite obvious what date format is used. Let me see... -rwx------ 1 amp amp 891837 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010065.jpg -rwx------ 1 amp amp 733361 2010-05-03 22:55 03052010066.jpg Can you tell if these files were created 5th march or 3rd may? How (I'd really like to know)? Regards, Andrei -- Offtopic discussions among Debian users and developers: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/d-community-offtopic |