Re: Scary bugs
Hello,
On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 12:19:23PM -0200, Henrique M Holschuh wrote:
[..]
> >
> > So this is definitively *not* an upstream problem. The bug sent by you
> > Andrew has been closed because something has been done, but IMHO what
> > has been done is a mistake.
>
> I disagree. It is also a upstream problem, and one not easy to fix.
Well, for this, I'm afraid I don't quite agree with you. Not for
`technical' reasons, but for a `philosophical' reason : unix type of
programs. hwclock does well what it's supposed to do : set the
hardware clock. As you say, setting the date on the system is a kind
of pain in the ass. This *complex* task must be done by a higher level
program, namely a script. So this is not an upstream problem, this is our.
I do agree with almost everything you wrote, but, at the moment, there is
a quick solution to give. I think that the initial --adjust can indeed
mess up the date (specially when the hardware clock backup the
local time) but this can be solved by a decision made at install time
when asking if the date must be set to local or GMT.
The second point is a lack of documentation, but the maintainer isn't
responsible for this : the task is big, and I don't think that it will
be easy to put something good in time for potato.
That's why I think that the solution I proposed can be considered
reasonable at the moment ( not a good one, not the best one, but an
average solution).
One people on debian-french has made some documentation, and we are, at
the moment, because of numerous complaints about the "mad clock", working
on it. I'd like that we could achieve something usable and translate it
for Woody. If the algorithms are good, a Perl script may be written in
order to help the user when the system is installed. If this is the case,
we'll give this to the maintainer. But this is for Woody, definitively not
for potato.
Cheers,
--
Thierry LARONDE
thierry.laronde@polynum.com
website : http://www.polynum.com
Reply to: