Call for testing: hwclock changes

[Scott James Remnant]

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 at canonical.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/attachments/20090218/ef3e25f1/attachment.pgp