1 Dec 2006 04:02
1 Dec 2006 04:43
Two tzcode fixes
Petr Baudis <pasky <at> suse.cz>
2006-12-01 03:43:33 GMT
2006-12-01 03:43:33 GMT
(Resending with correct mailing list address.) Hi, when checking a diff between tzcode2006o and the current glibc CVS, I've noticed two changes in glibc which were AFAICS never pushed upstream. Both were committed by Ulrich Drepper: [PATCH] (tofile;): Fix typo in symlink creation. Tue, 20 Dec 2005 07:55:45 +0000 timezone/zic.c | 2 +- 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) diff --git a/timezone/zic.c b/timezone/zic.c index 57dc531..4e3f42f 100644 --- a/timezone/zic.c +++ b/timezone/zic.c <at> <at> -650,7 +650,7 <at> <at> const char * const tofile; "../"); symlinkcontents = ecatalloc(symlinkcontents, - fromfile); + fromname); result = symlink(symlinkcontents, toname); if (result == 0) [PATCH] Fix spelling in message. Thu, 21 Sep 2006 03:57:30 +0000(Continue reading)
1 Dec 2006 07:49
Re: Vzic indicates missing tz rules
Paul Eggert <eggert <at> CS.UCLA.EDU>
2006-12-01 06:49:18 GMT
2006-12-01 06:49:18 GMT
Andy McDonald <andy_tz <at> stemhaus.com> writes: > Rule NT_YK 1918 only - Apr 14 2:00 1:00 D > Rule NT_YK 1918 only - Oct 27 2:00 0 S > ... > > Zone America/Inuvik -8:54:52 - LMT 1884 > -8:00 NT_YK P%sT 1979 Apr lastSun 2:00 In situations like these, zic assumes that standard time is in effect before the first Rule line takes affect, so it uses the first standard-time rule letter it sees. At least, that's my understanding -- I haven't looked at the code recently.
1 Dec 2006 18:15
Question about From & To rule fields...just t be certain I understand
Philip Warner <pjw <at> rhyme.com.au>
Question about From & To rule fields...just t be certain I understand
2006-12-01 17:15:01 GMT
Question about From & To rule fields...just t be certain I understand
2006-12-01 17:15:01 GMT
I'd like to clarify which year should be compared in from/to fields for rules (and zone lines). It seems reasonable that the AT field determines which year is to be compared (wallclock, utc or standard) -- is that correct? To give specific example: Rule Test 1999 only - Jan 1 0:00 2:00 - Rule Test 2000 only - Jan 1 0:00 0:00 - These are both wallclock rules, and suppose they are used in a region that is GMT+5. Then at UTC 31-Dec-1999 17:00 the WC time will turn to midnight....is that the point at which the clocks would be adjusted? And if so, in the following example: Rule Test 1999 only - Jan 1 0:00 2:00u - Rule Test 2000 only - Jan 1 0:00 0:00u - would the clocks adjust at UTC time 1-Jan-2000?
2 Dec 2006 20:15
From & To rule fields
Philip, my comments below >Philip Warner [pjw <at> rhyme.com.au] wrote: >I'd like to clarify which year should be compared in from/to fields >for rules (and zone lines). It seems reasonable that the AT field >determines which year is to be compared >(wallclock, utc or standard) -- is that correct? This is really quite simple because we don't allow AT field -1:00 (the day before) or even 24:00 (because some C compilers won't support it) so the year is always what the rule specifies, in the below 2 rules 1999 and 2000. However, if using u or s then effectively we could be talking about *local* time of another day, even another year. Yes, the AT field determines which year, that's correct. >To give specific example: >Rule Test 1999 only - Jan 1 0:00 2:00 - >Rule Test 2000 only - Jan 1 0:00 0:00 - >These are both wallclock rules, and suppose they are used in a >region that is GMT+5. Then at UTC 31-Dec-1999 17:00 the WC time >will turn to midnight....is that the point at which the clocks >would be adjusted? This is a bit weird, you are specifying in the first rule that at 0:00 1-Jan-1999 (local time) you are setting the clock 2 hours ahead, e.g. it will be GMT+7, starting year 1999 effectively at 2 o'clock ...(Continue reading)
3 Dec 2006 05:44
Re: From & To rule fields
Jesper Norgaard Welen wrote:
> Philip,
>
> my comments below
>
> ...
> I hope this clarifies the use for you ...
>
Yes, a great help. You confirmed what I expected...I just did not want
to be heading in the wrong direction.
Which leads to another question: based on the output of zdump, it looks
like rules not strictly included in a zone line are included if the
first rule does not match the time at which the rules are used. Another
example may help (with psuedo-syntax):
Zone Test ... +1:00..........Until 17:00 1-Mar-2000u
RuleSet1.....Until 17:00 1-Oct-2000u
+2:00..........Until 17:00 1-Feb-2001u
RuleSet2.....Until MAX
Rule RuleSet1 1999-Only +3:00 Jan
Rule RuleSet1 2000-Only +4:00 Aug
Rule RuleSet2 2001-Max +5:00 Apr
My understanding of this is that prior to 17:00 1-Mar-2000u, the zone
will be +1:00, then after 1-Mar-2000 it will be +3:00, using the rule
from 1999...then in 1-Aug it will jump to +4:00 and on 1-Oct-2000u it
will swap to +2:00 and will remain there until 1-Apr-2001, since no rule
(Continue reading)
4 Dec 2006 10:42
Africa/Asmera / Africa/Asmara
Klaus Klein <kleink <at> netbsd.org>
2006-12-04 09:42:05 GMT
2006-12-04 09:42:05 GMT
Feedback from one of our users, forwarded with permission. I've checked with the usual suspects (i.e., diplomatic services' web sites), which confirm the Asmara spelling. - Klaus ----- Forwarded message from Zafer Aydogan <zafer <at> aydogan.de> ----- the city name of Asmera has changed to Asmara. Shall we update the name in the zoneinfo file ? /usr/share/zoneinfo/Africa/ Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asmera Zafer. ----- End forwarded message -----
4 Dec 2006 23:09
Re: Africa/Asmera / Africa/Asmara
Paul Eggert <eggert <at> CS.UCLA.EDU>
2006-12-04 22:09:39 GMT
2006-12-04 22:09:39 GMT
Klaus Klein <kleink <at> netbsd.org> writes: > Feedback from one of our users, forwarded with permission. I've > checked with the usual suspects (i.e., diplomatic services' web > sites), which confirm the Asmara spelling. Thanks for the info. I assume the spelling changed around the time Eritrea became independent in May 1993? If so, we've had the "wrong" name since we originally created the tz database entry in November 1993, and since "Asmera" dominates "Asmera" handily in Google and Altavista I'm inclined to change the Zone name (putting in a backward compatibility link) in my next proposed patch unless there's strong sentiment otherwise.
5 Dec 2006 02:25
Re: Africa/Asmera / Africa/Asmara
Gwillim Law <RLAW <at> nc.rr.com>
2006-12-05 01:25:28 GMT
2006-12-05 01:25:28 GMT
I just spot-checked a bunch of atlases and other references from 1897 to the present. Almost all of them use the spelling "Asmara". Only a couple of recent ones (1990s) gave "Asmera" as a variant spelling. I suppose the name in Amharic script is unchanged, so if anything has changed, it's the transliteration method. -- Gwillim Law ----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Eggert" <eggert <at> CS.UCLA.EDU> > Thanks for the info. I assume the spelling changed around the time > Eritrea became independent in May 1993?
5 Dec 2006 09:46
Oddness in file interpretation - I assume I am missing something...
Philip Warner <pjw <at> rhyme.com.au>
2006-12-05 08:46:38 GMT
2006-12-05 08:46:38 GMT
The current files have the following zone & rules:
Freetown
Zone Africa/Freetown -0:53:00 - LMT 1882
-0:53:00 - FMT 1913 Jun # Freetown Mean Time
-1:00 SL %s 1957
0:00 SL %s
Rule SL 1935 1942 - Oct 1 0:00 0 WAT
Rule SL 1957 1962 - Jun 1 0:00 1:00 SLST
Rule SL 1957 1962 - Sep 1 0:00 0 GMT
And zic produces, among others, the following transition:
Africa/Freetown Sun Jun 1 00:52:59 1913 UTC = Sat May 31 23:59:59 1913
FMT isdst=0
Africa/Freetown Sun Jun 1 00:53:00 1913 UTC = Sat May 31 23:53:00 1913
WAT isdst=0
The problem/question I have is: based on the above rules, it is not at
all clear to me that Sat May 31 23:53:00 1913 should be designated
'WAT'; in fact I would have thought there would be a case for it being
'FMT' since none if the 'SL' rules apply in 1913.
This is further complicated by the following rules & zones:
Zone Africa/Algiers 0:12:12 - LMT 1891 Mar 15 0:01
0:09:21 - PMT 1911 Mar 11 # Paris Mean Time
0:00 Algeria WE%sT 1940 Feb 25 2:00
(Continue reading)
RSS Feed