On Saturday, March 29, 2008 at 2:23:45 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: [private /etc/hwclock.conf] > then you're just duplicating what distros already have in place. Distributions have scripts being or sourcing a conf file, and calling hwclock with the appropriate --options. Those script confs don't cover hand calls, nor foreign scripts. > i really see this as being in the realm of distro integration / system > administration, not util-linux, especially considering the distro side > of things is already there today. We should provide (at least) one good possible method to do things. Distributors and sysadmins are then free to use it in the way they feel most adapted. Task separation doesn't justify providing only a less good method, and telling that consequences are their problem. > command line options for controlling behavior is the standard > interface for everything at this level. That's not exactly right. Some tools also use env vars. > diverging because you're worried about trying to hold the hands of > sysadmins (who are supposed to know what they're doing) is just > craziness. We have two methods, $ADJTIME_PATH and --adjfile, of comparable development cost. One works effortlessly in all cases. The other doesn't, but sometimes requires additional typing. If the sysadmin then forgets the option or mistypes the filename, then the call gives wrong results. Worse, it can even lead the following good call to also give wrong results. In the specific hwclock case, --adjfile is functionaly inferior. Some other tools do well using --options. This fact is not a valid argument against an env var. Different situations, different best methods. Alain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux-ng" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
