From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jan 3 05:20:09 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: current@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7E616A41F for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:20:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from harmony.bsdimp.com (vc4-2-0-87.dsl.netrack.net [199.45.160.85]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EBC943D5F for ; Tue, 3 Jan 2006 05:20:07 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Received: from localhost (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1] (may be forged)) by harmony.bsdimp.com (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k035IwKQ017730; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 22:18:58 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@bsdimp.com) Date: Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:19:10 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <20060102.221910.122060994.imp@bsdimp.com> To: matthias.andree@gmx.de From: "M. Warner Losh" In-Reply-To: <20060102211956.GA10928@merlin.emma.line.org> References: <80432.1136235223@critter.freebsd.dk> <20060102211956.GA10928@merlin.emma.line.org> X-Mailer: Mew version 3.3 on Emacs 21.3 / Mule 5.0 (SAKAKI) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0 (harmony.bsdimp.com [127.0.0.1]); Mon, 02 Jan 2006 22:18:58 -0700 (MST) Cc: phk@phk.freebsd.dk, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2006 05:20:09 -0000 In message: <20060102211956.GA10928@merlin.emma.line.org> Matthias Andree writes: : On Mon, 02 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: : : > In message , Matthias Andree writes: : > : > >And tell me one reason why the leap second must be discontinued while : > >the leap day (Feb 29th) can be carried on. It's the same story, : > >irregular rollover, inserting one particular unit of time. : > : > You are clearly not thinking rationally here. : > : > I know already now that year 2048 will be a leap year, but I still : > don't know if there will be a leap second on june 30th 2006. : : And you can predict the DST rules for all major countries for 2048? Who : says the EU won't discontinue DST effective 2008? We don't know yet. : : You suggest UTC needs to be used because civil time matters, yet at the : same time UTC were broken, and thus POSIX were broken, but could not be : blamed for picking UTC. : : Leap days (called leap year, to compensate for earth orbiting the sun), : leap hours (called daylight savings time, completely artificial); aren't : questioned, but leap seconds are. : : Is it just me who sees inconsistencies in your argumentation here? No. UTC has no timezones, so is nearly predictable for long stretches of time. Leap seconds are a random pertebtation that can only be known as a table. Leap days are know for the next several thousand years. : No offense, but I simply don't get your point. Another question: Did you : mean to write "FreeBSD handles leapsecond in POSIX compliance" for the : subject? FreeBSD did it right. End of story. Warner