>> > in bind, two more in proftpd]), not Y2K save (they're still using glibc
>> > 2.0, which has a known Y2K bug), buggy, and nonstandard (why did they
>> [...]
>>
>> Wait a minute - RHL 5.2 is using glibc 2.0 as well, isn't it? Why has
>> there never been any mention of this by Red Hat - if not a fix?
>>
>> Could you supply more info or maybe a pointer to more info?
>
>I just remember having read about the problem somewhere. I don't remember
>what exactly was up; I think it was some bug in strftime().
>
>I don't think it'll have other effects than some output looking weird
>(logfiles suddenly getting entries from 1900).
I'd like to hear a more definite answer on this one. I'm not planning on
upgrading my 5.2 servers running glibc-2.0.7-29 before January (I have
enough to do with these *(#@&!! client PC's. Are there problems with the
older glibc and if so, how serious are they?
-Eric
Eric Sisler
Library Computer Technician
Westminster Public Library
Westminster, CO, USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux - don't fear the Penguin.
Want to know what we use Linux for?
Visit http://gromit.westminster.lib.co.us/linux
--
To unsubscribe: mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe"
as the Subject.
