On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 08:43:20PM -0700, Bela Lubkin wrote:
> Bryan> I think Hwclock should be distributed through a project of its own and
> Bryan> repackaged directly into Linux distributions like thousands of other
> Bryan> packages including util-linux(-ng).
I don't so ;-)
The util-linux-ng project is open for arbitrary sane patches --
everyone is welcome, including Bryan. I don't think that I have a
problem to collaborate with other people. We already have a community
around util-linux-ng (including RTC kernel developers). We are ready
to maintain and improve hwclock(8), do you want to help us?
Why do you need to maintain your hwclock separately? I don't see a real
technical reason.
> 4) modify util-linux-ng packaging to _by default_ omit hwclock, while
Why? Where is a group of people who need the change? The freedom of
choice between util-linux and Bryan's hwclock(8) exists for more than
7 years. The reality is that all mainstream Linux distributions
*successfully* use util-linux(-ng) hwclock.
BTW, I see a completely different trend in Linux distributions --
consolidation -- bigger, community driven and well maintained groups
of packages/utils rather than small one-man projects.
IMHO --disable-hwclock makes more sense for the minority of Linux
users who don't want (or cannot -- e.g. s390) use hwclock(8).
Again, your patches are welcomed.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
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
