README.y2k revision 302408
1 AM-UTILS YEAR-2000 COMPLIANCE 2 3Most likely am-utils is y2k compliant. 4 5I do not know for sure because I have not certified am-utils myself, nor do 6I have the time for it. I do not think that amd will be affected by y2k at 7all, because it does not do anything with dates other than print the date on 8the log file, in whatever format is provided by your os/libc --- especially 9the ctime(3) call. 10 11However, on Friday, September 18th 1998, Matthew Crosby <mcrosby@ms.com> 12reported that they evaluated 6.0a16 and found it to be compliant. 13 14On March 26, 1999, Paul Balyoz <pbalyoz@sedona.ch.intel.com> submitted a 15patch to lostaltmail which makes it print Y2K compliant dates. He used a 16code scanner and manually "eyeballed" the code and could not find any more 17problems. Paul's patch is included in am-utils-6.0.1s7 and newer versions. 18Paul also said that other 2-digit years used in am-utils are "harmless." 19 20NOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO 21CERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK. 22 23--- 24Erez Zadok. 25Maintainer, am-utils package and am-utils list. 26Email: am-utils@am-utils.org 27WWW: http://www.am-utils.org 28