Bug #114: expand setclock script
Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational
bill at nospam.dot
Tue Jan 13 14:31:21 PST 2004
On Tue, 13 Jan 2004, Matthew Burgess wrote:
> 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.
Here is foundation I used. Regardless of (B)LFS domain, we provide a
*basic* system. And in that we do strive to provide *certain* expected
functionality. One of those *could* be (but I do not advocate strongly
*should* be - I was playing devil's advocate only) a steady clock
accuracy. Now, depending on the desired Scope and Bounds du jour, one
might say we should provide this, as many claim we should provide a
basic DNS or network connectivity, or inetutils-like functionality, ...
So I was only pointing out that I believed the expectation is probably
there. Whether we want to include it in LFS, as I said, depends on the
mood of the day.
Just as with adding all the '&&', then removing them, increasing all CnP
ability, then reducing it, ...
Then it starts creeping in again.
Do you also see the humor in this "consistent inconsistency"?
Use fixed above line to mail me direct
More information about the lfs-dev