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
22219089SpjdNOTE: NONE OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED HERE, AUTHOR INCLUDED, ARE WILLING TO
23268656SdelphijCERTIFY AM-UTILS AS Y2K COMPLIANT.  USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.
24228103Smm
25236143Smm---
26251646SdelphijErez Zadok.
27168404SpjdMaintainer, am-utils package and AMD-DEV list.
28168404SpjdEmail: amd-dev-owner@majordomo.cs.columbia.edu
29168404SpjdWWW:   http://www.am-utils.org
30168404Spjd