From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 2 21:53:06 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E425416A420 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:53:06 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id A992B43D48 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 21:53:05 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from matthias.andree@gmx.de) Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 02 Jan 2006 21:53:04 -0000 Received: from p5091360C.dip0.t-ipconnect.de (EHLO merlin) [80.145.54.12] by mail.gmx.net (mp001) with SMTP; 02 Jan 2006 22:53:04 +0100 X-Authenticated: #428038 Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:53:02 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: Poul-Henning Kamp Message-ID: <20060102215302.GB10928@merlin.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: Poul-Henning Kamp , current@freebsd.org References: <20060102211956.GA10928@merlin.emma.line.org> <80684.1136237840@critter.freebsd.dk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <80684.1136237840@critter.freebsd.dk> X-PGP-Key: http://home.pages.de/~mandree/keys/GPGKEY.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 Cc: Matthias Andree , current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 21:53:07 -0000 On Mon, 02 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > And then, feel free come back and tell me and the rest of the world > how easy this problem can be solved correctly. I made no statement to the extent this problem were _easy_ to solve, and I am aware that any "solution" goes beyond FreeBSD's scope. > I assumed this to be self-evident, but I guess I need to lower > the bar in future emails. The actual point was that the definition of "correct" depends on the scope, and that drifted through the discussion. "Correct in POSIX:" yes, "correct" as "doing the right thing[tm] for all fields of application": clearly no. "Handles leapsecond according to IEEE Std 1003.1-2001" (or whichever you chose) avoids the need to disambiguate. BTW, thanks for providing evidence that your system was made aware of the leap second, and processed it in accordance with POSIX -- this is a data point for "leap seconds do work". -- Matthias Andree