Hi folks,

I've been making some changes to the hardware/system clock setting code,
I would appreciate some testing to make sure that no new bugs are
introduced - and hopefully that a couple of old ones may vanish.

To test, install the util-linux package from my PPA:

https://launchpad.net/~scott/+archive/ppa

Thanks,

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> I've been making some changes to the hardware/system clock setting code,
> I would appreciate some testing to make sure that no new bugs are
> introduced - and hopefully that a couple of old ones may vanish.

Anything in particular we should test? Or just of the "install and watch
out for bugs" variety?

Iain

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 20:42 +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:

> I've been making some changes to the hardware/system clock setting code,
> I would appreciate some testing to make sure that no new bugs are
> introduced - and hopefully that a couple of old ones may vanish.
>
> To test, install the util-linux package from my PPA:
>
> https://launchpad.net/~scott/+archive/ppa
>
Packages should now be available, the version you want is
2.14.2-1ubuntu4~keybuk1.

Sorry for the delay, as those following Planet Ubuntu may know, I've
been having a few problems with GIT <g>

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 08:42:24PM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Hi folks,

> I've been making some changes to the hardware/system clock setting code,
> I would appreciate some testing to make sure that no new bugs are
> introduced - and hopefully that a couple of old ones may vanish.

> To test, install the util-linux package from my PPA:

> https://launchpad.net/~scott/+archive/ppa

I've installed it and my system hasn't caught on fire yet. (I also have
my system clock set in UTC like any sensible person, and haven't rebooted,
so it's not much of a test so far.)

Should /etc/init.d/hwclock.sh be stripped down to be a no-op on 'start',
since there's no longer any reason to call it with this argument?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 15:28 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> Should /etc/init.d/hwclock.sh be stripped down to be a no-op on 'start',
> since there's no longer any reason to call it with this argument?
>
I left this there for maximum Debian compatibility - LaMont likes as
small a delta as possible, and it means it's trivial to put back if
people have a genuine use-case for it.

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:40:36AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 15:28 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> > Should /etc/init.d/hwclock.sh be stripped down to be a no-op on 'start',
> > since there's no longer any reason to call it with this argument?

> I left this there for maximum Debian compatibility - LaMont likes as
> small a delta as possible, and it means it's trivial to put back if
> people have a genuine use-case for it.

So these changes aren't intended to be pushed back to Debian, or aren't
expected to be acceptable? Is this because there's still an expectation
that udev is not required?

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org

--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel

On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 18:22 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:40:36AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 15:28 -0800, Steve Langasek wrote:
>
> > > Should /etc/init.d/hwclock.sh be stripped down to be a no-op on 'start',
> > > since there's no longer any reason to call it with this argument?
>
> > I left this there for maximum Debian compatibility - LaMont likes as
> > small a delta as possible, and it means it's trivial to put back if
> > people have a genuine use-case for it.
>
> So these changes aren't intended to be pushed back to Debian, or aren't
> expected to be acceptable? Is this because there's still an expectation
> that udev is not required?
>
That's up to the Debian maintainer (LaMont).

The hwclock patch itself, I'm just going to submit upstream.

Scott
--
Scott James Remnant
scott@canonical.com
--
ubuntu-devel mailing list
ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel