Subject: Re: why do date(1), at(1) and batch(1) accept 61 seconds?
To: NetBSD Users <>
From: Onno Ebbinge <>
List: netbsd-users
Date: 09/09/2005 11:26:02
Because Time and Dates can be a real pain I often use the following resourc=

The Best of Dates, The Worst Of Dates:    (by Gilbert Healton)

The Best of Dates, The Worst Of Dates: Leap Seconds and UTC

NIST Time Scale Data Archive

No mention of a 61st second (two positive leap seconds) anywhere...
If nobody can come up with a reason it should be patched.


On 9/9/05, Johan Danielsson <> wrote:
> "Stefan 'Kaishakunin' Schumacher" <> writes:
> > Why   is the 61st second required? As far as I unterstood, only a
> > 60th second is required for an additional leap second.
> Good question. I was under the impression that there could be up to
> two leap-seconds in one go, but looking for it I can't find any proof
> for this. There has not been more than one at a time since 1972, when
> the definition of UTC was altered (before, it was stepped by smaller
> amounts).
> /Johan