etcetera patch

[Paul Eggert]

> Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 18:20:39 -0800 (PST)
> From: Robbin Kawabata <Robbin.Kawabata at eng.sun.com>
> 
> I think etcetera is OK....

On second thought you're probably right.  This stuff is so obsolete now,
changing it would probably add to confusion rather than subtracting it.

> Note the comments in the file itself:
> 
>   # We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output,
>   # internal-style signedness in the specifications.
>   # For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC;
>   # it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, which is implemented directly as per POSIX.

Those comments are not quite right either, and they added to my confusion.
TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is not exactly equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, because they
result in different abbreviations.

How about if we change the above comments to be something like this instead?

# We use POSIX-style signedness in the names and output,
# internal-style signedness in the specifications.
# For example, TZ=Etc/GMT+4 corresponds to 4 hours _behind_ UTC;
# it is equivalent to TZ=GMT+4, except that it uses the abbreviation "GMT+4"
# whereas TZ=GMT+4 uses the misleading abbreviation "GMT".
# TZ=Etc/GMT+4 is equivalent to the TZ='<GMT+4>+4' of Draft 5 of the next
# version of POSIX, but the angle-bracket notation is not yet
# supported by the tz code.  With the Draft 5 notation, people who
# prefer the traditional time zone sign can use TZ='<GMT-4>+4'.