Bug #114: expand setclock script

Robert Day zarin at localhost.localdomain
Tue Jan 13 05:49:31 PST 2004


On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 07:51, Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational wrote:
> 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.
> >
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > 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.
> 

There are alot of "reasonable expectations" that users can and do
have...  The issue is where LFS stops, and BLFS starts, and where the
user is in control.  I guess all we can do, and should do, is express
our points, as we have done, and leave it to the book maintainers to
decide which way to go.  

I can agree that the sync can be inplimented the same way as setkeys
is.  optional, if you need / want it.

  Rob Day (BOFH)




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list