Date: Tue, 19 Jan 1999 13:19:35 +1100 (EST) From: "Daniel O'Callaghan" <danny@hilink.com.au> To: Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com> Cc: Don JW Westlight <don@admin.ogi.edu>, freebsd-bugs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: http://www.freebsd.org/y2kbug.html Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.990119131019.769C-100000@enya.clari.net.au> In-Reply-To: <19990119120516.E474@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 19 Jan 1999, Greg Lehey wrote: > I suppose it makes sense, for *supported* versions of FreeBSD. We > don't really have a definition of supported, but I'd say that it would > be too much trouble to go further back than 2.2.8 and 3.0 (since they > will both be obsolete by the end of the year). In the case of these > versions, I hope we can just say "compliant". I'm going to do a y2k patchkit for 2.2.8 and 3.0. Hopefully it will be officially blessed. It will only apply to base system programs, not to ports or packages. I *think* we've found all y2k bugs and nits, so that 3.1 will be compliant, or so close as makes no difference, depending on your local definition of "compliant". Danny To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-bugs" 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.3.96.990119131019.769C-100000>