From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4785 invoked by alias); 2 Jun 2016 07:03:24 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 4770 invoked by uid 89); 2 Jun 2016 07:03:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=alas, month, honest X-HELO: zimbra.cs.ucla.edu Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH v2 3/6] Implement the %OB specifier - alternative month names (bug 10871) To: Rafal Luzynski , libc-alpha@sourceware.org References: <1155243857.420233.60a90901-4334-4cea-aa99-f76884316a10.open-xchange@poczta.nazwa.pl> <20160329143132.GA28928@altlinux.org> <666336576.426212.9ea90152-1d54-4eec-8ffa-81bfd328d92b.open-xchange@poczta.nazwa.pl> <20160601104220.GA1077@altlinux.org> <323322572.685262.92369107-bdae-4a8b-b71f-99b919bc0cf0.open-xchange@poczta.nazwa.pl> <37aa7442-e282-a3bd-a7ce-6e06aed9172a@cs.ucla.edu> <480412909.686000.92369107-bdae-4a8b-b71f-99b919bc0cf0.open-xchange@poczta.nazwa.pl> From: Paul Eggert Message-ID: <574FDA37.2000704@cs.ucla.edu> Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2016 07:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <480412909.686000.92369107-bdae-4a8b-b71f-99b919bc0cf0.open-xchange@poczta.nazwa.pl> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 Rafal Luzynski wrote: > Sounds nice, I will > have to read more about it. (Any hints, links etc. are welcome.) Alas, I don't know of any documentation for that, you can look in the source code tho. (I'm by no means an expert in this stuff, alas.) > What if a programmer, for example an author of cal(1), just rebuilds > the unmodified source while it should be modified? Is there a way to > tell them they should at least verify their source code? Not really. I wouldn't worry much about that problem, to be honest.