john wrote: > (1) If powerd fails when the clock is set to before the Unix epoch, > powerd is buggy, and this bug should be ticketed and fixed.
i agree. though i confess yesterday was the first time i'd ever seen a negative number from "date +%s". it kind of threw me. ticket filed: https://dev.laptop.org/ticket/12621 > > That bug is independent of the situation that causes the clock to get > set that way (which may well be another bug in another component, which > would deserve another ticket). it's likely that bad validation of RTC register values is to blame, though that remains to be seen. paul > > (2) Perhaps the reason there is trouble with reflashing some laptops > whose clocks are bad is that the signature on the new release has a > limited validity time period, and the security system is rejecting the > new release because the bad clock looks like it's outside the validity > period? > > John > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > Devel@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel =--------------------- paul fox, p...@laptop.org _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel