From owner-freebsd-bugs Mon Jan 18 18:20:42 1999 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA24241 for freebsd-bugs-outgoing; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:20:42 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from enya.clari.net.au (enya.clari.net.au [203.8.14.116]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA24220 for ; Mon, 18 Jan 1999 18:20:35 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from danny@enya.clari.net.au) Received: from localhost (danny@localhost) by enya.clari.net.au (8.8.8/8.8.7) with SMTP id NAA18674; Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:36 +1100 (EST) (envelope-from danny@enya.clari.net.au) Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:35 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" To: Greg Lehey cc: Don JW Westlight , freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/y2kbug.html In-Reply-To: <19990119120516.E474@freebie.lemis.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > I suppose it makes sense, for *supported* versions of FreeBSD. We > don't really have a definition of supported, but I'd say that it would > be too much trouble to go further back than 2.2.8 and 3.0 (since they > will both be obsolete by the end of the year). In the case of these > versions, I hope we can just say "compliant". I'm going to do a y2k patchkit for 2.2.8 and 3.0. Hopefully it will be officially blessed. It will only apply to base system programs, not to ports or packages. I *think* we've found all y2k bugs and nits, so that 3.1 will be compliant, or so close as makes no difference, depending on your local definition of "compliant". Danny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" in the body of the message