[LEAPSECS] Crunching Bulletin B numbers (POSIX time)
joegwinn at comcast.net
Sat Feb 19 16:46:03 EST 2011
At 11:30 PM +0200 2/19/11, Paul Sheer wrote:
>On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 11:08 -0500, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>> At 3:59 PM +0000 2/19/11, Ian Batten wrote:
>> >On 19 Feb 2011, at 15:41, Gerard Ashton wrote:
>> >> On 2/19/2011 10:24 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote, in part:
>> >>> I have not been following the proposal in detail, but a key issue
>> >>>to the POSIX community is that their timescale must be
>> >>>implementable in a totally isolated machine, one having no GPS or
>> >>>internet access.
>this is why leap seconds announced ten years in advanced
>are important: they allow for a stand-alone machine, albeit
>one that only needs to have it's software upgraded once in
This would go a long way to resolving the POSIX objections.
If such an approach is in fact adopted, and I very much doubt that
the Timelords much care about POSIX.
> > >>> There are other requirements as well. This was discussed at
>> >>>length on the Time Nuts reflector, until Tom kicked the thread
>> >>>over to Leap Secs.
>> This was beaten to death on the Time Nuts reflector in the thread
>> "Leap seconds and POSIX" around January 2009.
>what was the summary?
There was none - it degenerated into the usual brawl, then Tom
ejected the combatants.
But the reason to look at the old thread is that I laid out the POSIX
requirements with some precision, and handling of leap seconds was a
More information about the LEAPSECS