Merge from vendor branch GCC:
[dragonfly.git] / contrib / amd / README.y2k
CommitLineData
984263bc
MD
1# -*- text -*-
2 AM-UTILS YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE
3
4Most likely am-utils is y2k compliant.
5
6I do not know for sure because I have not certified am-utils myself, nor do
7I have the time for it. I do not think that amd will be affected by y2k at
8all, because it does not do anything with dates other than print the date on
9the log file, in whatever format is provided by your os/libc --- especially
10the ctime(3) call.
11
12However, on Friday, September 18th 1998, Matthew Crosby <mcrosby@ms.com>
13reported that they evaluated 6.0a16 and found it to be compliant.
14
15On March 26, 1999, Paul Balyoz <pbalyoz@sedona.ch.intel.com> submitted a
16patch to lostaltmail which makes it print Y2K compliant dates. He used a
17code scanner and manually "eyeballed" the code and could not find any more
18problems. Paul's patch is included in am-utils-6.0.1s7 and newer versions.
19Paul also said that other 2-digit years used in am-utils are "harmless."
20
21
22NOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO
23CERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
24
25---
26Erez Zadok.
27Maintainer, am-utils package and AMD-DEV list.
28Email: amd-dev-owner@majordomo.cs.columbia.edu
29WWW: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~ezk/am-utils/