On Wednesday 22 May 2002 01:58 pm, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> On Wed, 2002-05-22 at 10:51, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > What isn't funny is Oliver Elphick's results on Debian, running glibc
> > 2.2.5 (same as Red Hat 7.3's version).
> This is a completely different version. Once Debian updates (in a few
> years) they'll get the same result.
A completely different version with the same version number? Or is this a
case of a Red Hat version number really meaning something different
Shouldn't glibc 2.2.5 be the same as glibc 2.2.5 regardless of distribution?
And who's to stop them patching out the new stuff and reinstating the old
behavior? :-)
> If you are misusing interfaces you get what you deserve. At no time was
> it correct to use these functions for general date manipulation. It
> always only was allowed to use them to represent system times and there
> was no Unix system before the epoch. Therefore you argumentation is
> completely wrong.
If it is completely wrong, then tell Sun, HP, and all the rest of the Unix
vendors, including the authors of the original AT&T code as lifted by
Berkeley, that they're wrong and you're right. They'll laugh you to scorn.
And just which 'major Unixen' other than AIX and Irix that follow the letter
of the 'seconds since the epoch' definition of the ISO standard?
> If you need date manipulation write your own code which work for all the
> times you want to represent.
The mktime bug doesn't effect our representation of dates and times other than
the timezone at this time. What's aggravating to me is the surprise factor.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
