On Fri, Jul 29, 2005 at 11:39:41PM +0200, Alexander Dalloz wrote: >> Am Fr, den 29.07.2005 schrieb Berna Massingill um 21:53: >> >> > >> > > hwclock --show | cat >> > >> > > >> > >> > > Does that help? >> > >> > It did for me (newly-installed FC4 system on Dell Dimension, >> > hwclock from util-linux-2.12p-9.5). [ snip ] >> > >> > No change. Why do you think it would? >> > >> > I'm interested in the explanation as well -- why piping the output >> > to another command makes a difference. A colleague also says "ask >> > him whether he found this by accident or whether he knew it would >> > work because of some deep understanding ...." So -- ? >> >> Fair question. I "know" it from >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=150153 Aha. I was puzzled for a bit about how selinux would come into things on my system, since I thought during installation I had said not to enable that, but in fact /etc/selinux/config had SELINUX=enforcing, and when I changed that to "permissive", hwclock began producing output when it didn't before. This also explains the difference in behavior between my FC4 system and another one to which I have access -- the other system has SELINUX=disabled. Perhaps this will be useful information to others on the list. >> > >> hwclock is in the list of daemons covered by the targeted policy. This >> > >> means hwclock may or may not have control over the terminal. >> > >> > Would I be right in guessing that this explains why putting the >> > executable in a different directory changes the results?? >> > >> > >> Though it >> > >> seems this issue is a different one (on the German speaking Fedora list >> > >> the cat pipe helped recently[1]). >> > >> >> > >> Alexander >> > >> >> > >> [1] >> > >> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-de-list/2005-June/msg00109.html >> > >> > If only I read German! >> >> Should have been just a reference, as the thread too shows a strace >> output. Fair enough. -- blm
