Description of problem: The list of possible option for printf format of File access time isn't complete regarding strftime options. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): findutils-4.6.0-20.el8.x86_64 How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. `man find` 2. search for %AF in printf section 3. Actual results: The option is not listed 737 -printf format … 776 %Ak File's last access time in the format specified by k, which is 777 either `@' or a directive for the C `strftime' function. The possi‐ 778 ble values for k are listed below; some of them might not be avail‐ 779 able on all systems, due to differences in `strftime' between sys‐ 780 tems. ... 815 Date fields: 816 817 a locale's abbreviated weekday name (Sun..Sat) 818 819 A locale's full weekday name, variable length (Sunday..Satur‐ 820 day) 821 822 b locale's abbreviated month name (Jan..Dec) 823 824 B locale's full month name, variable length (January..December) 825 826 c locale's date and time (Sat Nov 04 12:02:33 EST 1989). The 827 format is the same as for ctime(3) and so to preserve compat‐ 828 ibility with that format, there is no fractional part in the 829 seconds field. 830 831 d day of month (01..31) 832 833 D date (mm/dd/yy) 834 ====> HERE "F" is missing 835 h same as b 836 Expected results: Either the complete list of strftime options or limited list with redirect to strftime. Additional info: https://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man3/strftime.3.html
(In reply to Steffen Froemer from comment #0) > 737 -printf format > … > 776 %Ak File's last access time in the format specified by k, which is > 777 either `@' or a directive for the C `strftime' function. The possi‐ > 778 ble values for k are listed below; some of them might not be avail‐ > 779 able on all systems, due to differences in `strftime' between sys‐ > 780 tems. The above text already refers to the `strftime` function. Are you proposing to change wording of the text somehow?
(In reply to Kamil Dudka from comment #2) > Are you proposing to change wording of the text somehow? Yes, I would change the wording. The text says: > The possible values for k are listed below; some of them might not be available on all systems, due to differences in `strftime' between systems. This means, the parameters listed in the manpage of `find` are the only ones which are supported out of the whole list of available parameters in strftime. This is wrong. Better to say, "Below is an excerpt of possible values for k. For full list please refer to documentation of `strftime`* *typically I guess the manpage of strftime on different systems does only consist the list of supported values, so an exception of unsupported values can be left out. Does this make sense?
Thanks! I have proposed a patch upstream: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-findutils/2020-10/msg00000.html
upstream commit: https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/findutils.git/commit/?id=efa4554930
C8S MR: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/findutils/-/merge_requests/7