Re: Does ups have any Y2K problems?

From: Callum Gibson (
Date: Thu Jul 29 1999 - 01:46:58 BST

  • Next message: Oscar Guell Perez - Lab. Calculo LSI: "is ups 3.33 y2k compliant?"
    Bob Carragher writes:
    :-)This brings up a question I've had regarding tools on systems
    :-)that may not necessarily be certified Y2K-compliant:  if the
    :-)tool itself does not use any date information (other than,
    :-)for example, for output purposes), can it be certified as Y2K-
    :-)compliant, even if it breaks on a non-Y2K-compliant system?
    I think compliancy is something that is determined or specified by the
    individual organisation. For example we had certain testing procedures,
    etc, and it was a valid explanation if there were no dates in an
    application. However, some places may not accept that.
    :-)My guess is that UPS doesn't use date information except for
    :-)determining when an executable is out-of-date with respect to
    :-)a source file.  But UPS is dependent upon how a given flavor
    Which is unix timestamp type date and isn't stored in a day/month/year
    format so it's okay.
    :-)of *nix returns the date information.  If that system is not
    :-)"Y2K"-compliant (i.e. still returning a 32-bit date in the year
    :-)2038), is it then UPS's fault that it may consistently report a
    :-)newly created executable as "out-of-date" (by reverse video) if
    :-)some source has not been modified since "rollover?"
    The 2038 timestamp problem isn't a Y2K compliancy issue, though it's
    arguably as big a problem - possibly bigger because you need 64bit
    hardware to deal with it and then you have to convert all your stuff
    to use that. How much code thinks sizeof(int) == sizeof(long)?
    Callum Gibson                         
    Fixed Income IT, Deutsche Bank, Australia                    61 2 9258 1620
    ### The opinions presented herein do not represent those of my employer ###

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 21:55:52 GMT