Bug #114: expand setclock script

Alexander E. Patrakov semzx at newmail.ru
Tue Jan 13 06:50:47 PST 2004


On Tuesday 13 January 2004 17:28, Robert Day wrote:
> imho - a short, and simple script to save system time to hwclock is in
> order, in BLFS.  Not in LFS.



> 1. LFS is, imho, supposed to be as bare, and minimalistic as possible..

But we do have vim and force its preference over nano... (don't flame, I like 
vim and don't like nano, and I fave read the FAQ). And note that there is no 
word "minimal" in the description of LFS in the book or in the FAQ. LFS is 
supposed to be bare, but not minimalistic.

> 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)

And what is the poin of having incorrect system clock? I know that I will not 
gain additional precision by synchronizing the hwcloch on shutdown, but I 
will not lose much.

> 3. ntp, if installed, is a BLFS issue. Not LFS issue.
Agreed.

> 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.

I vote for addition of one more parameter to /etc/sysconfig/clock file. That 
will avoid the need of having separate versions of /etc/rc.d/init.d/setclock 
in LFS and BLFS.

Of course you will object that we have a separate network script in BLFS for 
those using dhcp. That point is valid.

-- 
Alexander E. Patrakov




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list