1998-11-14 03:11:37 +00:00
|
|
|
AM-UTILS YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most likely am-utils is y2k compliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not know for sure because I have not certified am-utils myself, nor do
|
|
|
|
|
I have the time for it. I do not think that amd will be affected by y2k at
|
|
|
|
|
all, because it does not do anything with dates other than print the date on
|
|
|
|
|
the log file, in whatever format is provided by your os/libc --- especially
|
|
|
|
|
the ctime(3) call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-31 00:08:49 +00:00
|
|
|
However, on Friday, September 18th 1998, Matthew Crosby <mcrosby AT ms.com>
|
1998-11-14 03:11:37 +00:00
|
|
|
reported that they evaluated 6.0a16 and found it to be compliant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-31 00:08:49 +00:00
|
|
|
On March 26, 1999, Paul Balyoz <pbalyoz AT sedona.ch.intel.com> submitted a
|
1999-09-15 02:50:52 +00:00
|
|
|
patch to lostaltmail which makes it print Y2K compliant dates. He used a
|
|
|
|
|
code scanner and manually "eyeballed" the code and could not find any more
|
|
|
|
|
problems. Paul's patch is included in am-utils-6.0.1s7 and newer versions.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul also said that other 2-digit years used in am-utils are "harmless."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO
|
|
|
|
|
CERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
1998-11-14 03:11:37 +00:00
|
|
|
Erez Zadok.
|
2004-07-06 12:55:44 +00:00
|
|
|
Maintainer, am-utils package and am-utils list.
|
2001-09-02 17:19:13 +00:00
|
|
|
WWW: http://www.am-utils.org
|
