Subject: Re: why do date(1), at(1) and batch(1) accept 61 seconds?
To: None <email@example.com>
From: Klaus Klein <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 09/09/2005 11:50:47
Onno Ebbinge wrote:
> Because Time and Dates can be a real pain I often use the following resource:
> 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.
This used to be a POSIX thing; however, with its alignment to C99
the double leap second was disposed of in the 2001 edition.