Bug#3087: acknowledged by developer (was: Bug in date.) (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 1996 08:39:07 -0500
From: "Bunch, John F" <JFBunch@ingr.com>
To: "'owner@bugs.debian.org'" <owner@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: RE: Bug#3087 acknowledged by developer (was: Bug in date.)
>>I am closing this bug report because setting the motherboard clock is
>>not the responsibility of date(1), nor is it the responsibility of the
>>date(1) man page to mention the motherboard clock.
>>
>>--
>>Scott Barker
>>Linux Consultant
>scott@galileo.cuug.ab.ca
Dear Mr. Barker:
You stated that setting the motherboard clock is not the responsibility
of date(1).
Since you did not reference any requirements document, I can neither
confirm nor
deny the validity of your statement.
However, the AT&T UNIX System V Release 3 User's Reference Manual
(Copyright
1986 AT&T) clearly states that the date(1) command can be used to set
the current
date. On all implementations of UNIX that I have used (e.g. Ultrix,
HP-UX, CLIX,
Solaris) the date command does set the hardware clock. The Linux
date(1)
command works quite differently than the date(1) command in UNIX,
because
its effects are temporary, not permanent.
This difference in implementations greatly confused me, and I suspect
that other
new users who have UNIX experience will also be confused. In order to
reduce
the chance of confusion, I would appreciate it if you would consider
editing the
manual page for date(1) to more precisely explain what date(1) does and
does not
do.
Furthermore, most manual pages contain cross references to related
manual pages.
Therefore, it would also be quite considerate to add clock(1) to the SEE
ALSO
section of the date manual page.
Sincerely,
John F. Bunch
Software Consultant
bunch@ro.com
>
Reply to: