From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 733E0C2D0DB for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 38E5D206D5 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 17:50:30 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="eO+u0B5y" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1725944AbgAZRu3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jan 2020 12:50:29 -0500 Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com ([209.85.128.65]:55214 "EHLO mail-wm1-f65.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725838AbgAZRu3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 26 Jan 2020 12:50:29 -0500 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id g1so4339149wmh.4 for ; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:50:28 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=e/jwl2HJIAgZbot9tTCASF/wwXeIJTBJ21ckANldHKk=; b=eO+u0B5yvFj26Wrp21O8c3CQsgeXaePj9hUvB2c1OrlC3F6DNk4JXxgxliRhoPhqmr YuWXDiM3+7kuUUjs46DSeQYQnEgfOEDZlqbS0/ubTaFeZb7N5JfopAVjrNGgMR2v09ec IWn10/uqL2dGv27btlVrHFHVssMEPjY6XHZszrQLgpmQcpTEXnGk5zV5DJW+nWquntxY 1TnUA8gDtXccvj0/PsXAKOj6B+EgTC9MBww1AsdeC4i2eXMCy8irJQAlRq0n6S0oJ8Oh B2YQK9Xn/9QfsOAvVpCLA8GHC8X32Dxq1GRLLeJL6H5CEW8NfGhQGN+9jAibTgnFHYMw iJKg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=e/jwl2HJIAgZbot9tTCASF/wwXeIJTBJ21ckANldHKk=; b=oVf95QEeU8PNjLWLhGsiTSLwHw74fJLWfjXwOED4EkQPqsgB/xesghF3Q1zvoCN5nf n49RUmwA5AutoTR6FzM+hRHl945jwdmWGDDPrVw+JhdtG/TPUkz8HRmq2tL34D+jLSNU 7ObxNmbXYi8QbExLj7EOptEJw74sSr5sn0mDJ2yxUMsvAO0vQ7+UmCBuFXwgBEJkjCan DcH7aIrpA6JOfoUezaKTfC0vjwLss/1ycy/zMSomwD/23fHQG6EsWw2jd1Kne1SY1tnc vHsylI6ElDQSQS/cPrmHd672GET8gToBs0LrN03C/J3jcMkvgyRP+QGR0+FiPKRpTXwt tq1w== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWgFIaR6J786ahZDgo3JXOJ997JxU91HqGZgKSWdDwwOOEOhW3Q tjUoqETk0Oyh8bNWTClfzqvzWgVSfZYDzWzwBT0= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqwQexwJdBaOWDajfe4YVmG4BdwOmtf6TPAsvZh7jjC9PLC+X+j/uHWzsvMVWWVW/Qkd1knN0JxJjThuJqc1B3c= X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:30a:: with SMTP id q10mr9613388wmd.84.1580061027215; Sun, 26 Jan 2020 09:50:27 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20200121105711.zzeeolydlivqnik7@ws.net.home> <20200125105126.xaopgydc7dlrpztt@x2.net.home> In-Reply-To: From: Carlos Santos Date: Sun, 26 Jan 2020 14:50:15 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE] util-linux v2.35 To: J William Piggott Cc: Karel Zak , util-linux@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: util-linux-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: util-linux@vger.kernel.org On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 2:00 PM J William Piggott wrote: > > > > On Sat, 25 Jan 2020, Karel Zak wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 04:16:47PM -0300, Carlos Santos wrote: > > > >> That's a problem. It makes hwclock hard to include in embedded systems > >> due to the GPLv3 restrictions. > >> > >> I noticed that it comes due to sys-utils/hwclock-parse-date.y, which > >> was taken from gnulib. Would it be possible to take the file from an > >> previous version of gnulib that was still under GPLv2? > >> > >> An alternative approach would be porting a similar code using a more > >> liberal license, e.g. BSD. > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > I have tried to export it from gnulib with v2, but it was impossible > > by official gnulib tools. Maybe do it manually from some old > > tarball. I'll accept a patch for this if you have time do it. > > You do realize that I had to heavily modify that file to remove its > gnulib dependencies (because you said no to gnulib). If I recall > correctly I had newer and older versions to chose from and picked that > one due to it having the most bugs fixed while still being practical to > strip its gnulib dependence. > > The reasons for making the change were: > * remove hwclock's dependence on date(1) > * remove an insecure call to date(1) > * I thought there would be to many complaints if the accepted input > date formats were changed > > As to the last bullet point; personally I think having the --date option > accept every date syntax know to history is nonsense. A fixed format > would be fine with me. Since we switched hwclock's output to ISO 8601 > that seems like a good choice for its input. Or you could just use the > existing utillinux date parser. > > The question is, do you want to deal with any pushback for > changing the long established accepted --date formats? > > > > > I'll like to release 2.35.1 ASAP (due to bug in sfdisk --move-data), > > so we can add this license change too. Can't we use getdate(3), instead? I see some advantages in this approach: - It's a POSIX standard - It's supported by GLIBC, uClibc-ng and musl, among others - No need to maintain the code, since it is provided by the system libc - It's easy to a default template to use if DATEMSK is not defined (e.g. start with a copy of NetBSD's /usr/share/examples/getdate/datemsk.template and expand it as necessary). Being non-reentrant is irelevant for hwclock and the cost of reading an external file is negligible. -- Carlos Santos