Bug #114: expand setclock script

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Tue Jan 13 10:45:12 PST 2004

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:51:14 -0500 (EST)
"Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational" <bill at nospam.dot> wrote:

> 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.

A computer user should *never* expect their machine to do anything
unless it was explicitly told to do so (except to die an untimely
death of course).  Therefore if they're experiencing symptoms they
don't expect they should check the docs, thereby astutely noting that
man date(1) says "print or set the *system* date and time" - not a
mention of the hardware clock there at all :)

Of course we all know what users are like (including myself of course)
so this should be taken for the tongue-in-cheek remark it really is.

Seriously though, I agree with the point that this is a BLFS issue, not
LFS.  However as the base for BLFS, LFS naturally needs to assess
whether there is anything it can do to assist BLFS in providing this
facility to users.



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list