* Marco d'Itri (md@Linux.IT) wrote: > On Feb 15, Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> wrote: > > >Hmm. I don't think I fall into either category. I have large numbers > >of Debian servers which all use Kerberos, which means they all run ntp. > >We run a single ntp server locally, that all the other machines point > >at; since being in sync with the KDC is more important here than being > >precisely in sync with the outside world, this provides a comparatively > >reliable method of achieving this goal. It reduces the load we impose > >on busy public NTP servers, and there's been minimal need for config > >customization (firewalls can take care of most such issues). > > > >Which group would you classify our site in? > One which needs a site-wide method of pushing config files to hosts. This is stupid. The previous setup worked and was exactly what at least Steve and I needed. Now you're claiming we're so special that Debian can't handle it or shouldn't support it? Sorry, that's just wrong. Stephen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature