Subject: Re: why do date(1), at(1) and batch(1) accept 61 seconds?
To: NetBSD Users <email@example.com>
From: Onno Ebbinge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
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 <email@example.com> wrote:
> "Stefan 'Kaishakunin' Schumacher" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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