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