README.y2k revision 82794
141142Sobrien# -*- text -*- 241142Sobrien AM-UTILS YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE 341142Sobrien 441142SobrienMost likely am-utils is y2k compliant. 541142Sobrien 641142SobrienI do not know for sure because I have not certified am-utils myself, nor do 741142SobrienI have the time for it. I do not think that amd will be affected by y2k at 841142Sobrienall, because it does not do anything with dates other than print the date on 941142Sobrienthe log file, in whatever format is provided by your os/libc --- especially 1041142Sobrienthe ctime(3) call. 1141142Sobrien 1241142SobrienHowever, on Friday, September 18th 1998, Matthew Crosby <mcrosby@ms.com> 1341142Sobrienreported that they evaluated 6.0a16 and found it to be compliant. 1441142Sobrien 1551292SobrienOn March 26, 1999, Paul Balyoz <pbalyoz@sedona.ch.intel.com> submitted a 1651292Sobrienpatch to lostaltmail which makes it print Y2K compliant dates. He used a 1751292Sobriencode scanner and manually "eyeballed" the code and could not find any more 1851292Sobrienproblems. Paul's patch is included in am-utils-6.0.1s7 and newer versions. 1951292SobrienPaul also said that other 2-digit years used in am-utils are "harmless." 2051292Sobrien 2151292Sobrien 2251292SobrienNOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO 2351292SobrienCERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. 2451292Sobrien 2551292Sobrien--- 2641142SobrienErez Zadok. 2741142SobrienMaintainer, am-utils package and AMD-DEV list. 2841142SobrienEmail: amd-dev-owner@majordomo.cs.columbia.edu 2982794SobrienWWW: http://www.am-utils.org 30