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