Just chiming in to support Harald.
Busybox provides a usable ntpd interface. Calling ntpd with the suitable arguments is the job of the init scripts, not Busybox; if people have trouble starting ntpd, it's the responsibility of their distribution packagers, not of Busybox; if they are the distribution packagers, then it shouldn't be hard to write scripts that use command line arguments. Turning to upstream to do something that's normally handled at the distribution level is the wrong way to go. Especially when it's about adding config files; config files are a horrible idea overall and only pay for themselves when configuration is *really* tough, which clearly isn't the case with ntpd. "But everyone has to do it their own way, we need to unify this" is a flawed argument. Distributions will find their own way to package things and run daemons anyway. (And most of them suck: the mainstream view of how init should be done went directly from System V scripts to systemd, i.e. out of the frying pan and into the fire.) There are 3 inevitable things in the universe: death, taxes, and the gratuitous repackaging of stuff with subtly incompatible changes from one integrator to another. Changing the way ntpd reads its options isn't going to unify jack. I agree that the world needs some unified way to launch things, but unfortunately, it's not going to happen in the next decade or two. This is the time it's going to take for most people to finally get fed up with systemd enough to look for alternatives again. In the meantime, choose your own way, the one that's going to give you the least headaches, and work with it. (Of course, the best initscripts system out there is clearly s6. But one could argue that I'm partial.) -- Laurent _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list busybox@busybox.net http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
