[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ntp 4.2.0 in experimental

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 02:11:46AM -0500, Simon Law wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2004 at 10:39:50PM -0600, Steve Langasek 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?

> 	It sounds like they should re-introduce debconf, but with a
> "low" priority to the question.  The default answer, of course, would be
> pool.ntp.org.

But this isn't consistent with policy: if the question is really low
priority, this means there's a reasonable default, so policy says this
should be a conffile, which then can't be modified.  More widespread
adoption of ucf may help here, but policy doesn't currently address that

My argument is that the proposed ntp defaults are not so "reasonable"
after all, and the debconf question should be retained at high priority
-- with the maintainer scripts fixed to not stomp on local changes.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: