Date: Wed, 19 Nov 1997 20:03:33 +0000 From: James Raynard <james@jraynard.demon.co.uk> To: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Tell the world about Year 2000 Compliance Message-ID: <19971119200333.45342@jraynard.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971119152934.14760C-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk>; from Stephen Roome on Wed, Nov 19, 1997 at 03:36:13PM %2B0000 References: <Pine.BSF.3.95.971119152934.14760C-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Nov 19, 1997 at 03:36:13PM +0000, Stephen Roome wrote: [Maybe this should have gone to -hackers?] > Finally, what's being done (if any?) to insure that FreeBSD _IS_ and > _REMAINS_ Year 2000 compliant... e.g. New packages/ports etc. Good question. I had a look through the Solaris FAQ, and checked some of the points they raised to see if the base FreeBSD system was affected. (Didn't think of checking ports, but the base system should probably take priority). The only one I wasn't sure about was atq, but that's so badly written that I was tempted to re-write it! (Maybe the author has a newer version that addresses these problems?) I suppose we ought to be checking things like arguments to strftime() and assumptions about the tm_year field (which will change from a 2-digit to a 3-digit field in 2000!). I've had a casual browse, but it really needs to be done systematically. -- In theory, theory is better than practice. In practice, it isn't. James Raynard, Edinburgh, Scotland. http://www.freebsd.org/~jraynard/
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971119200333.45342>