FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly

M. Warner Losh imp at
Mon Jan 2 21:20:09 PST 2006

In message: <20060102211956.GA10928 at>
            Matthias Andree <matthias.andree at> writes:
: On Mon, 02 Jan 2006, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
: > In message <m3psnagxrb.fsf at>, Matthias Andree writes:
: > 
: > >And tell me one reason why the leap second must be discontinued while
: > >the leap day (Feb 29th) can be carried on. It's the same story,
: > >irregular rollover, inserting one particular unit of time.
: > 
: > You are clearly not thinking rationally here.
: > 
: > I know already now that year 2048 will be a leap year, but I still
: > don't know if there will be a leap second on june 30th 2006.
: And you can predict the DST rules for all major countries for 2048? Who
: says the EU won't discontinue DST effective 2008? We don't know yet.
: You suggest UTC needs to be used because civil time matters, yet at the
: same time UTC were broken, and thus POSIX were broken, but could not be
: blamed for picking UTC.
: Leap days (called leap year, to compensate for earth orbiting the sun),
: leap hours (called daylight savings time, completely artificial); aren't
: questioned, but leap seconds are.
: Is it just me who sees inconsistencies in your argumentation here?

No.  UTC has no timezones, so is nearly predictable for long stretches
of time.  Leap seconds are a random pertebtation that can only be
known as a table.  Leap days are know for the next several thousand

: No offense, but I simply don't get your point. Another question: Did you
: mean to write "FreeBSD handles leapsecond in POSIX compliance" for the
: subject?

FreeBSD did it right.  End of story.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list