Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, John Goerzen wrote: > Package: util-linux > Version: 2.11l-1 > Severity: important > > On many PowerPC machines (maybe all?), the program "clock" should be used > from powerpc-utils. Using hwclock actually hangs the bootup procedure > because it confuses the RTC driver in the

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 06:37:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Package: util-linux > > Version: 2.11l-1 > > Severity: important > > > > On many PowerPC machines (maybe all?), the program "clock" should be used > > from powerpc-utils. Using hwclock ac

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread John Goerzen
Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > John, what kernel/machine do you have hwclock causing a hang? I'm not > sure off the top of my head what the status is in 2.2, but 2.4 has a > "proper" /dev/rtc driver. We should be using hwclock. Clock is an > awful ADB-bit-bashing hack that need

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Ethan Benson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 06:37:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Package: util-linux > > Version: 2.11l-1 > > Severity: important > > > > On many PowerPC machines (maybe all?), the program "clock" should be used > > from powerpc-utils. Using hwclock ac

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Ethan Benson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 12:40:51PM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > John, what kernel/machine do you have hwclock causing a hang? I'm not > > sure off the top of my head what the status is in 2.2, but 2.4 has a > > "proper" /dev/rtc driver. We shou

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Derrik Pates
On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, Ethan Benson wrote: > you configured it wrong then. > > CONFIG_RTC=n > CONFIG_PPC_RTC=y > > that is the correct config. yours is no doubt backwards. Has anyone considered patching the kernel config scripts so that it just won't even ASK about the "Enhanced Real-time Clock",

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:41:45PM -0600, Derrik Pates wrote: > Has anyone considered patching the kernel config scripts so that it just > won't even ASK about the "Enhanced Real-time Clock", since this is 100% > _wrong_ for PowerPCs? It's a) ugly and b) wrong, since it does work on some PPCs. -

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 06:37:05PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Tue, 23 Oct 2001, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Package: util-linux > > Version: 2.11l-1 > > Severity: important > > > > On many PowerPC machines (maybe all?), the program "clock" should be used > > from powerpc-utils. Using hwclock ac

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-23 Thread Robert Bar
At 13:16 Uhr -0400 23.10.2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: (...) John, what kernel/machine do you have hwclock causing a hang? I'm not sure off the top of my head what the status is in 2.2, but 2.4 has a "proper" /dev/rtc driver. We should be using hwclock. Clock is an awful ADB-bit-bashing

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:33:24PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:41:45PM -0600, Derrik Pates wrote: > > > Has anyone considered patching the kernel config scripts so that it just > > won't even ASK about the "Enhanced Real-time Clock", since this is 100% > > _wrong_ for Power

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 06:19:09AM +0200, Robert Bar wrote: > At 13:16 Uhr -0400 23.10.2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > (...) > > John, what kernel/machine do you have hwclock causing a hang? I'm not > > sure off the top of my head what the status is in 2.2, but 2.4 has a > > "proper" /dev/r

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread John Goerzen
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > you should not change it. this is caused by misconfigured kernels, on > powerpc the kernel *MUST* be compiled with CONFIG_PPC_RTC and NOT > CONFIG_RTC, the latter must be disabled, completely. And this is documented where? Why is CONFIG_RTC even offere

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread John Goerzen
Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > you configured it wrong then. > > CONFIG_RTC=n > CONFIG_PPC_RTC=y > > that is the correct config. yours is no doubt backwards. No, mine has both compiled as a module. > the clock program as Dan put it is a kludge that must die, and a > couple users m

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:54:45AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > you should not change it. this is caused by misconfigured kernels, on > > powerpc the kernel *MUST* be compiled with CONFIG_PPC_RTC and NOT > > CONFIG_RTC, the latter must be disabled, c

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:57:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > you configured it wrong then. > > > > CONFIG_RTC=n > > CONFIG_PPC_RTC=y > > > > that is the correct config. yours is no doubt backwards. > > No, mine has both compiled as a module. w

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Tom Rini
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 08:57:34AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > [snip] Perhaps you should > implement a telepathic kernel configuration interface so that > everybody that reads the documentation knows the extra five paragraphs > that appear nowhere? Well, the defconfig which gives you the sugges

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Wed, 2001-10-24 at 09:45, Ethan Benson wrote: > you generally have to manually upgrade kernel packages Virtual packages like kernel-image-apus might be a good idea? -- Earthling Michel Dänzer (MrCooper)/ Debian GNU/Linux (powerpc) developer XFree86 and DRI project member / CS student, Fr

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-24 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 24, 2001 at 11:58:44PM +0200, Michel Dänzer wrote: > On Wed, 2001-10-24 at 09:45, Ethan Benson wrote: > > > you generally have to manually upgrade kernel packages > > Virtual packages like kernel-image-apus might be a good idea? manual upgrade of kernels is intentional, it was decide

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-27 Thread Adrian Bunk
Hi Daniel, hi *, after reading this discussion I have the following questions/remarks: As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you will remove the clock program from powerpc-utils? I don't h

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Daniel Jacobowitz
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 02:32:41PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Hi Daniel, hi *, > > after reading this discussion I have the following questions/remarks: > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does t

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sat, Oct 27, 2001 at 02:32:41PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > Hi Daniel, hi *, > > after reading this discussion I have the following questions/remarks: > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does t

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Michael Schmitz
> > BTW: Out of interest: What is the history of the renaming of "fdisk" to > > "ddisk" on powerpc? > > I've no idea. I'd never heard of this, in fact. I bet it stands for > DOS fDISK; it reads DOS partition tables and not Apple ones, and > mac-fdisk supplies the 'fdisk' binary. The fdisk b

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 04:06:34PM +0100, Michael Schmitz wrote: > > > BTW: Out of interest: What is the history of the renaming of "fdisk" to > > > "ddisk" on powerpc? > > > > I've no idea. I'd never heard of this, in fact. I bet it stands for > > DOS fDISK; it reads DOS partition tables an

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > will remove the clock program from powerpc-utils? > > No, I'm not going to; it's obsolete,

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-28 Thread Tom Rini
On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 08:16:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > > will remove the clo

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread John Goerzen
Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > will remove the clock program from powerpc-utils? I'm not so sure this is true. I've had terrible tr

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Michel Dänzer
On Wed, 2001-10-31 at 14:58, John Goerzen wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > will remove the clock program from powerpc-

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 08:58:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > will remove the clock program

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Ethan Benson
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 03:12:49PM +0100, Michel Dänzer wrote: > > That happens to me when I have a bad crash or similar, are you sure it > happens for you when hwclock is run? Even if yes, hwclock uses /dev/rtc > so the problem is likely there. this problem is not specific to linux, macos has th

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Tom Rini
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 08:58:13AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > will remove the clock program

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread John Goerzen
Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Is this a PReP box you're talking about? What kernel are you running > and did you set a date on the box from PPCBUG to start with? hwclock is > quite happy on mine, and PRePs don't have ADB anyhow so the evil clock > hack program can't do anything. It's a

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Tom Rini
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 11:20:17AM -0500, John Goerzen wrote: > Tom Rini <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Is this a PReP box you're talking about? What kernel are you running > > and did you set a date on the box from PPCBUG to start with? hwclock is > > quite happy on mine, and PRePs don't hav

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Olaf Hering
On Wed, Oct 31, John Goerzen wrote: > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does that mean you > > will remove the clock program from powerpc-utils? > >

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-10-31 Thread Chris Tillman
On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 07:17:59PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: > On Wed, Oct 31, John Goerzen wrote: > > > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete and you can > > > use hwclock on all machines (including PReP machines?). Does

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-04 Thread Michel Lanners
On 31 Oct, this message from Chris Tillman echoed through cyberspace: > On Wed, Oct 31, 2001 at 07:17:59PM +0100, Olaf Hering wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, John Goerzen wrote: >> >> > Adrian Bunk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > >> > > As far as I understand it clock from powerpc-utils is obsolete a

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-04 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Michel Lanners wrote: > > FWIW, I don't think recent PowerBooks even have a PRAM battery; I think > they only have the main battery. Older ones (my PB500 comes to mind) had > a small watch-style battery for clock and nvram backup. well i think nvram setti

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-04 Thread Christoph Ewering
Ethan Benson wrote: On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 09:15:43AM +0100, Michel Lanners wrote: FWIW, I don't think recent PowerBooks even have a PRAM battery; I think they only have the main battery. Older ones (my PB500 comes to mind) had a small watch-style battery for clock and nvram backup. well i

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-05 Thread Ethan Benson
On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:28:31PM +0100, Christoph Ewering wrote: > But iBooks do not have this battery. If you remove the main-battery the > NVRAM-settings and RTC are toasted in a few seconds or minutes. rtc for sure, but i don't think nvram settings will be lost. unless they changed it agai

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-05 Thread Christoph Ewering
Ethan Benson wrote: On Sun, Nov 04, 2001 at 08:28:31PM +0100, Christoph Ewering wrote: But iBooks do not have this battery. If you remove the main-battery the NVRAM-settings and RTC are toasted in a few seconds or minutes. rtc for sure, but i don't think nvram settings will be lost. unle

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-05 Thread Ethan Benson
On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 11:41:11AM +0100, Christoph Ewering wrote: > Do you unplug the mainboard from the powersupply? yup. > > > Apple calls this a "mainboard reset" > 1. unplug AC-Powercord > 2. remove the mainboard battery > 3. disconnet powersupply from mainboard > 4. press the startup-but

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-09 Thread Adrian Bunk
On Sun, 28 Oct 2001, Tom Rini wrote: > On Sun, Oct 28, 2001 at 08:16:50PM +0100, Adrian Bunk wrote: > > All right. Is the special casing of the PReP machines obsolete, too or > > should I keep it? > > Obsolete. Thanks for this clarification, I'll remove the special handling for PReP machines in t

Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run

2001-11-11 Thread Rory Campbell-Lange
Hi. I've just grabbed the sid util-linux, and come across the following problem on install: (Reading database ... 40457 files and directories currently installed.) Preparing to replace util-linux 2.11l-4 (using util-linux_2.11l-4_powerpc.deb) ... Unpacking replacement util-linux ... Setting up ut

Bigger/better RTC stuffs (Was Re: Bug#116780: util-linux: hwclock shouldn't be run)

2001-10-24 Thread Tom Rini
On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 11:18:39PM -0800, Ethan Benson wrote: > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:33:24PM -0700, Tom Rini wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 23, 2001 at 08:41:45PM -0600, Derrik Pates wrote: > > > > > Has anyone considered patching the kernel config scripts so that it just > > > won't even ASK about