Bug #114: expand setclock script

Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational bill at nospam.dot
Tue Jan 13 04:51:14 PST 2004


On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Robert Day wrote:

> On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 20:38, Gerard Beekmans wrote:
> ><snip>

> > if the hardware clock should be saved to match the current system clock.
> >
> ><snip>

> imho - a short, and simple script to save system time to hwclock is in
> order, in BLFS.  Not in LFS.
>
> Resaons for this argument are as follows:
>
> 1. LFS is, imho, supposed to be as bare, and minimalistic as possible..
> a bare booting Linux for you to do as YOU want, not as some distro
> forces you to do (yes, hush up the "well users can ignore the script if
> they don;t want it" flames please - I know that, but most users are
> mostly "to the letter" followers)
> 2. The only really good reason for syncing yer hwclock to the system
> clock is if you know your system clock to be correct (either manually
> updating, or ntp)
> 3. ntp, if installed, is a BLFS issue. Not LFS issue.
>
> So, in BLFS, syncing the hwclock to the system clock (which is synced to
> Atomic clock's somewhere) makes sense here.  Other than that, I see no
> reason.

Good points. For "devil's advocate" purposes: if the LFS user sets the
date and time manually, he could reasonably expect it to hold across
reboots. And there is noting wrong with that expectation, other than it
is not native behavior. So I think setting it on shutdown by default,
providing adequate discussion should be our course.

>   Rob Day (BOFH)

-- 
Bill Maltby,
LFS Organizational
billATlinuxfromscratchDOTorg
Use fixed above line to mail me direct



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list