- tz - lists.iana.org

Re: Time Zone FTP
by Alex LIVINGSTON July 8, 1999

July 8, 1999

[In error, sent direct to Cliff Hancuff only first.] >It seems in the entanglement of transfering all my files to my new >hot rod of a computer I've misplaced the FTP address for the >world time zone file. > >If it is not too much trouble, could I ask that you save me from >the continued misery of trying to find which bookmark file I put >that in? I'd like to download the latest revisions. > >TIA > >Cliff Hancuff That would be ftp://elsie.nci.nih.gov//pub/ unless I'm mistaken. --Alex

1 0

FW: Time Zones
by Olson, Arthur David (NCI) July 7, 1999

July 7, 1999

-----Original Message----- From: Daniel C. Sobral [SMTP:dcs@newsguy.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 03, 1999 8:18 AM To: tz(a)elsie.nci.nih.gov Subject: Time Zones I'd like to point out that what you call "Zone America/Sao_Paulo", the brazilian "legal time", is actually known as _Brasilia_ time zone in Brazil. -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs(a)gns.com.br To see you is to sympathize.

4 4

Time Zone FTP
by CHancuff＠aol.com July 7, 1999

July 7, 1999

It seems in the entanglement of transfering all my files to my new hot rod of a computer I've misplaced the FTP address for the world time zone file. If it is not too much trouble, could I ask that you save me from the continued misery of trying to find which bookmark file I put that in? I'd like to download the latest revisions. TIA Cliff Hancuff

1 0

Timezones for US
by Sullivan N. Beck July 6, 1999

July 6, 1999

On Solaris 2.6, I noticed that the output from zdump seemed a bit odd. The first lines are: US/Eastern Sat Dec 14 20:45:52 1901 GMT = Sat Dec 14 16:45:52 1901 EWT isdst=0 US/Eastern Sun Mar 31 06:59:59 1918 GMT = Sun Mar 31 02:59:59 1918 EWT isdst=0 ... I'm sure that 1901 shouldn't be in a wartime timezone. I checked the northamerica file (which, BTW, contains exactly the same rules as are in the 1999d tzdata package). I see the following lines: # Rule NAME FROM TO TYPE IN ON AT SAVE LETTER/S Rule US 1918 1919 - Mar lastSun 2:00 1:00 W # War Rule US 1918 1919 - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S Rule US 1942 only - Feb 9 2:00 1:00 W # War Rule US 1945 only - Sep 30 2:00 0 S Rule US 1967 max - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S Rule US 1967 1973 - Apr lastSun 2:00 1:00 D Rule US 1974 only - Jan 6 2:00 1:00 D Rule US 1975 only - Feb 23 2:00 1:00 D Rule US 1976 1986 - Apr lastSun 2:00 1:00 D Rule US 1987 max - Apr Sun>=1 2:00 1:00 D # US Eastern time, represented by New York # Rule NAME FROM TO TYPE IN ON AT SAVE LETTER Rule NYC 1920 only - Mar lastSun 2:00 1:00 D Rule NYC 1920 only - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S Rule NYC 1921 1966 - Apr lastSun 2:00 1:00 D Rule NYC 1921 1954 - Sep lastSun 2:00 0 S Rule NYC 1955 1966 - Oct lastSun 2:00 0 S # Zone NAME GMTOFF RULES FORMAT [UNTIL] Zone America/New_York -4:56:02 - LMT 1883 Nov 18 12:00 -5:00 US E%sT 1920 -5:00 NYC E%sT 1942 -5:00 US E%sT 1946 -5:00 NYC E%sT 1967 -5:00 US E%sT Unless I'm missing something, this means that from Nov 18, 1883 to Jan 1, 1920, America/New_York is using the rules named "US". The problem is, there are no "US" rule prior to 1918. A quick glance shows the same thing for America/Chicago, America/Denver, and America/ Los_Angelas. Should there be another Zone line defining an alternate rule, or another "US" rule? ---------------------------- Sullivan Beck ----------------------------- sbeck(a)cise.ufl.edu | This space reserved for some saying demonstrating CSE 314E | great wisdom, wit, or insight. I'll fill it in PH : (352) 392-1057 | just as soon as I have any of the above. Fax: (352) 392-1220 | ------------------- http://www.cise.ufl.edu/~sbeck/ --------------------

1 0

Re: ISO 14652 draft on POSIX date/time/tz
by Ulrich Drepper July 5, 1999

July 5, 1999

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28(a)cam.ac.uk> writes: > The first thing I wonder about this is what implementation experience > there is of including timezone specifications in the locale specification > as this does? After all, when C9X revisions were being discussed it was > insisted that any significant new features should be based on previous > implementation experience! The timezone stuff in 14652 is completly useless. The rules and everything are far more complicated then anything which can be expressed in the LC_TIME specification. I complained about this but since 14652 is now rejected I don't care that much anymore. All I will do (for glibc 2.2) is to allow the specification determine the name of the timezone and then the normal tzdata files are consulted for the real information. -- ---------------. drepper at gnu.org ,-. 1325 Chesapeake Terrace Ulrich Drepper \ ,-------------------' \ Sunnyvale, CA 94089 USA Cygnus Solutions `--' drepper at cygnus.com `------------------------

1 0

ISO 14652 draft on POSIX date/time/tz
by Markus Kuhn July 5, 1999

July 5, 1999

Those of you interested in upcoming ISO standards related to date/time/ timezone APIs for POSIX systems should have a look at http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/ISO-14652.pdf especially section 4.7 (8 pages). This is the usual holy ISO top secret draft stuff for the enlightened inner circles only, so don't tell anyone where you found it. I feel that some of the things it introduces (e.g., the ISO 8601 B.C. notation) might need a bit more scrutinizing and alignment with ISO C9x strftime(), but see for yourself. Editor of this seems to be Keld Simonsen <keld(a)dkuug.dk> and responsible is <http://anubis.dkuug.dk/JTC1/SC22/WG20/> where comments should be directed to have impact. Markus -- Markus G. Kuhn, Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, UK Email: mkuhn at acm.org, WWW: <http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/>

2 1

Re: TZ not working
by Paul Stewart June 16, 1999

June 16, 1999

The perl-tzlib is not maintained by the folks on this list -- just me. If I had to guess, I'd imagine the problem is that your timezone database is not yet compiled, or isn't in the directory pointed to at "TZDIR" in Makefile.PL. Please follow up your queries directly to me. -- Paul In message <12594.990616(a)cl.spb.ru> you write: >Hello tz, > > I Installed perl-tzlib. > Run the test script tztest.pl, and it says > > 14:11:15 1999 > 14:11:15 1999 > 929527875 > 929527875 > > I suppose it have to give me different times. > > What can be wrong? >Best regards, > Webmaster mailto:webmaster@cl.spb.ru > >

1 0

64-bit time_t and tz file format
by alan perry June 10, 1999

June 10, 1999

A couple of days ago, I posted something to this list about how to go about changing the tz file format to support a 64-bit time_t value. I have heard nothing back. I was looking through the tzcode to see if this problem has been addressed already and found the following comment in the zic source. > ** The tz file format currently allows at most 32-bit quantities. > ** This restriction should be removed before signed 32-bit values > ** wrap around in 2038, but unfortunately this will require a > ** change to the tz file format. So, has anyone been looking into this issue? As I noted earlier, the current tz file format doesn't scale well to a 64-bit time_t and all of the possible additional timezone transitions that result from the addition years that can be represented. As OS vendors (including the one that I used to work for) consider what to do with time_t when their OS adds 64-bit support and how to deal with 2038, they might be tempted to come up with their own solution if it doesn't get addressed by the elsie code. alan

2 1

FW: 64-bit time_t and tz file format
by Olson, Arthur David (NCI) June 10, 1999

June 10, 1999

-----Original Message----- From: alan perry [SMTP:esprit@jps.net] Sent: Thursday, June 10, 1999 1:18 PM To: tz(a)elsie.nci.nih.gov Subject: 64-bit time_t and tz file format A couple of days ago, I posted something to this list about how to go about changing the tz file format to support a 64-bit time_t value. I have heard nothing back. I was looking through the tzcode to see if this problem has been addressed already and found the following comment in the zic source. > ** The tz file format currently allows at most 32-bit quantities. > ** This restriction should be removed before signed 32-bit values > ** wrap around in 2038, but unfortunately this will require a > ** change to the tz file format. So, has anyone been looking into this issue? As I noted earlier, the current tz file format doesn't scale well to a 64-bit time_t and all of the possible additional timezone transitions that result from the addition years that can be represented. As OS vendors (including the one that I used to work for) consider what to do with time_t when their OS adds 64-bit support and how to deal with 2038, they might be tempted to come up with their own solution if it doesn't get addressed by the elsie code. alan

1 0

FW: 64-bit time_t
by Olson, Arthur David (NCI) June 10, 1999

June 10, 1999

-----Original Message----- From: Alan Perry [SMTP:esprit@best.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 1999 6:00 PM To: tz(a)elsie.nci.nih.gov Subject: 64-bit time_t Not sure if this has been discussed before, has anyone been thinking about the effect of a 64-bit time_t on the zoneinfo file? It seems that just substituting a set of 8-byte values for the transition times could result in really big zoneinfo files, particularly when you consider that there are many more possible transition times. alan perry

1 0