Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 12:36:52 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@hilink.com.au> To: Garrett Wollman <wollman@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu> Cc: committers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Y2K compliance question Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990115122736.2001D-100000@enya.clari.net.au> In-Reply-To: <199901150051.TAA26690@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 14 Jan 1999, Garrett Wollman wrote: > We believe that there are no bugs remaining which would cause > erroneous operation of a previously working system; however, there may > be some problems remaining in user-interface functionality and > third-party software. Right now, FreeBSD-current is *NOT* y2k compliant. I know that there *are* bugs remaining. Can I ask people to tone down the statements of y2k compliance which they hand out, please. Perhaps someone with better PR skills than I can dream up some way of saying "most of the y2k problems are sorted out, but we are presently conducting a review of the system and standard software." Since I started my review, I have found y2k problems with tar, cvs, xntpd. Calendar is looking suspicious, and you never know what beasties lurk around the corner. I'm glad that the date for 3.1 has been put back, because I'd like to progress further into the review-and-fix cycle before it is released. I'm not going to get much further without assistance, though. Many thanks to Nathan and Mark who *have* assisted so far. Danny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.990115122736.2001D-100000>