On Wed, 2015-04-29 at 18:46 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote: > On Wed, 29.04.15 11:48, Przemek Klosowski (przemek.klosowski@xxxxxxxx > ) wrote: > > > I agree that it's not possible to make this work under every > > circumstance, > > but a compromise existed that worked well enough so that most > > people were > > not complaining. I propose that a system that possibly hiccups > > every year or > > two is better than a system that misbehaves all the time. Why > > can't the > > startup just treat the RTC as if it was GMT with an unexplained > > offset? e.g. > > measure that offset when time syncing with reliable sources, write > > it down > > and use it on the next boot? > > Hmm? we *do* support rtc-in-local at a basic level already > (i.e. without DST handling). > > What doesn't work is rtc-in-local in early-boot, that's all. And that > doesn't matter really, except if you are crazy enough to manually > enable time-based fsck in ext234, which has been turned off by > default > in fedora since time begain, and even has been turned off upstream > now, because it's simply a crazy feature. We seem to have two sides saying two fundamentally different things here: one claiming that all Windows/Fedora multiboot systems (that haven't had the hardware clock set to UTC and Windows adjusted to know about that) are doing fsck on boot all the time, one claiming that "This only trips you up if you combine two known broken settings". Who's correct? It seems like we should at least be able to reasonably establish that. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
