Date: Tue, 8 Jun 1999 11:45:48 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
X-Sender: eliz AT is
To: "Schullman, Dan" <DSchullman AT Genicom DOT com>
cc: "'djgpp AT delorie DOT com'" <djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: GNU date utility problems (Y2K, etc.)
In-Reply-To: <746D722EB387D21180EE0000F87A4ADF020664@bxbexc1>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.91.990608114458.4197N-100000@is>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

Please don't post in HTML.

On Mon, 7 Jun 1999, Schullman, Dan wrote:

> It sounds like at least one of them might be fixed by re-porting the
> latest GNU version, for which I'd be most appreciative!

Porting a GNU package is a major undertaking.  FWIW, I don't plan to
make a new port of Sh-utils at least for some time to come.
Volunteers are welcome to port newer versions, as usual.

> I've named the executable 'gdate.exe', since the MSDOS shell treats 'date'
> and even 'date.exe' as an internal command name.

I don't understand.  The archive shl112b.zip on DJGPP ftp sites
already includes gdate.exe, precisely for this reason.  So why did you
need to rename date.exe?

> It sounds
> like this may be fixed in the latest (1.16) version of the shell utilities,
> based on a bug list I read somewhere, but I am looking for a precompiled
> executable.

If these problems are solved in v1.16, you could simply download the
sources of of that version from some GNU ftp site, extract only
getdate.c from it, replace getdate.c in shl112s.zip that is available
from the DJGPP sites, and then rebuild the package with DJGPP tools.
The build procedure should work with no problems (be sure to read the
file README.dos which explains how to build).