From owner-freebsd-standards@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 8 03:26:35 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F8A516A4CE; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:26:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.32.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1E15D43D41; Tue, 8 Jun 2004 03:26:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from kensmith@cse.Buffalo.EDU) Received: from electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (kensmith@localhost [127.0.0.1]) i583QXAx026949; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from kensmith@localhost) by electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.12.10/8.12.9/Submit) id i583QXu6026948; Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:26:33 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 23:26:33 -0400 From: Ken Smith To: Garrett Wollman Message-ID: <20040608032633.GF25445@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> References: <20040607.082534.17038697.imp@bsdimp.com> <200406071712.i57HC805042166@grimreaper.grondar.org> <20040608024746.GB25445@electra.cse.Buffalo.EDU> <200406080316.i583GECP038131@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200406080316.i583GECP038131@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: standards@FreeBSD.ORG cc: Ken Smith cc: des@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT cfg_local.pm X-BeenThere: freebsd-standards@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Standards compliance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 03:26:35 -0000 On Mon, Jun 07, 2004 at 11:16:14PM -0400, Garrett Wollman wrote: > [Moving this discussion to -standards.] > > < said: > > > It sounds like it would be better for the system to say "UTC" instead > > of "GMT" in the absence of /etc/localtime. Does anyone disagree? > > I don't think POSIX reaches this question. It says that there shall > be a default timezone used when the TZ variable is not set, but > doesn't say how this is established or what it should be, so I'm fine > with that. (But it will be a challenge to find the right bits in > localtime.c to frob in order to make it happen, as I just found when I > looked.) Thanks - I should have realized this was where to ask. :-( Since I brought it up I'm willing to try and find what needs to be changed unless someone else feels a burning need to do it themselves, I don't want to step on toes. If it's me I would be assuming this is something that would need to happen before -current becomes -stable and that it would not be retro-fitted to 4.X since it has the potential for breakage. -- Ken Smith - From there to here, from here to | kensmith@cse.buffalo.edu there, funny things are everywhere. | - Theodore Geisel |