[Date Index][Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: y2k readiness of wml

On Thu, May 20, 1999, Oliver Daly wrote:

> On Thu, May 20, 1999 at 10:39:41AM +0200, Fritz Zaucker wrote:
> > Oliver Daly <Oliver.Daly@its.monash.edu.au> writes:
> > 
> > > I was wondering if wml is y2k ready?
> > 
> > Are you?
> I'll rephrase the question, are there any statements on the y2k readiness/compliance of 
> wml? Or are any statements prepared to be made. Sure, I could check the source myself,
> however having about 800 other packages to check, in the next two weeks, does require
> as many shortcuts to be made, including relying on vendor statements. Any useful
> information that can be offered on this would be greatly appreciated.

I don't know whether Denis wants to give a statement, but I personally would
avoid it myself. For instance I give such statements only in exceptional
situations (e.g. for my mod_ssl), because it's not worth the trouble in
general. When you're paid for a product, you have to give such statements and
people can come back when the product will fail later. That's ok. 

But for unpaid Open Source products the author just opens a can of worms when
giving such statements. Every author should try hard to make its product Y2K
complaint, of course. And both I and Denis tried this for WML, too. But when
it still isn't, either help us to make it compliant (contribute patches) or
accept the fact that you usually can't receive a definitive statement because
it's an unpaid Open Source product where authors don't want to give such
statements. For instance for OpenSSL we intentionally don't give such
statements, too.

                                       Ralf S. Engelschall
Website META Language (WML)                www.engelschall.com/sw/wml/
Official Support Mailing List                   sw-wml@engelschall.com
Automated List Manager                       majordomo@engelschall.com