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