On Sun, Oct 19, 2008 at 02:17:01PM -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).
>
> Karel> I don't so ;-)
> Karel>
> Karel> The util-linux-ng project is open for arbitrary sane patches --
> Karel> everyone is welcome, including Bryan. I don't think that I have a
> Karel> problem to collaborate with other people. We already have a community
> Karel> around util-linux-ng (including RTC kernel developers). We are ready
> Karel> to maintain and improve hwclock(8), do you want to help us?
> Karel>
> Karel> Why do you need to maintain your hwclock separately? I don't see a real
> Karel> technical reason.
>
> The historic reason is that an old version of hwclock was captured into
> util-linux long ago, and not maintained in parallel with the separate
> hwclock project that _already existed_ at that time.
Are you really sure?
The original clock(8) (Apr 1992) has been always distributed within
util-linux. Brayn's hwclock(8) (Sep 1996) -- based on clock(8) -- has
been already available in util-linux-2.7 (1997).
It seems that hwclock(8) has been always part of util-linux and there
was always an util for work with HW clock in util-linux package.
> Karel> Why? Where is a group of people who need the change? The freedom of
> Karel> choice between util-linux and Bryan's hwclock(8) exists for more than
> Karel> 7 years. The reality is that all mainstream Linux distributions
> Karel> *successfully* use util-linux(-ng) hwclock.
>
> It's true. It's also true that the util-linux hwclock is old, has lots
> of old bugs and weaknesses, and some mainline distro users suffer for
> those.
A lot of bugs? Do you have any list of bugs?
The really is that tons of users use it for years and I see minimal
number of bug reports. I (and probably also downstream maintainers)
simply cannot ignore this fact and switch to any other *untested*
version of basic system util. This is the important point.
> Karel> Again, your patches are welcomed.
>
> Are you really going to welcome a set of patches the brings
> util-linux-ng hwclock up to parity with Bryan's (plus any useful bits
> that may exist in the util-linux(-ng) branch)?
Now in my TODO list are things like --fast, --correct, --cpupriority
(maybe) and some code refactoring (for more details see mailing list
archive). I'm open for arbitrary other improvements and suggestions
of course ... and things also depends on review at util-linux-ng
mailing list. This is a community project.
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
