README.y2k revision 82794
1168404Spjd# -*- text -*- 2168404Spjd AM-UTILS YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE 3168404Spjd 4168404SpjdMost likely am-utils is y2k compliant. 5168404Spjd 6168404SpjdI do not know for sure because I have not certified am-utils myself, nor do 7168404SpjdI have the time for it. I do not think that amd will be affected by y2k at 8168404Spjdall, because it does not do anything with dates other than print the date on 9168404Spjdthe log file, in whatever format is provided by your os/libc --- especially 10168404Spjdthe ctime(3) call. 11168404Spjd 12168404SpjdHowever, on Friday, September 18th 1998, Matthew Crosby <mcrosby@ms.com> 13168404Spjdreported that they evaluated 6.0a16 and found it to be compliant. 14168404Spjd 15168404SpjdOn March 26, 1999, Paul Balyoz <pbalyoz@sedona.ch.intel.com> submitted a 16168404Spjdpatch to lostaltmail which makes it print Y2K compliant dates. He used a 17168404Spjdcode scanner and manually "eyeballed" the code and could not find any more 18168404Spjdproblems. Paul's patch is included in am-utils-6.0.1s7 and newer versions. 19168404SpjdPaul also said that other 2-digit years used in am-utils are "harmless." 20168404Spjd 21168404Spjd 22168404SpjdNOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO 23185029SpjdCERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. 24168404Spjd 25168404Spjd--- 26168404SpjdErez Zadok. 27168404SpjdMaintainer, am-utils package and AMD-DEV list. 28168404SpjdEmail: amd-dev-owner@majordomo.cs.columbia.edu 29168404SpjdWWW: http://www.am-utils.org 30168404Spjd