Am 04.01.2017 um 18:30 schrieb Paride Legovini: > On 2017-01-04 18:01, Michael Biebl wrote: > >> I also notice that ntp itself does not itself have a provides >> time-daemon, only chrony and openntpd do. >> >> Those do have Conflicts/Replaces/Provides: time-daemon >> >> So, by adding Provides: time-daemon, it would make those packages >> uninstallable and maybe someone wants to use chrony or openntpd instead >> of timesyncd. > > Definitely a good point, this shouldn't happen. I guess that > distributing timesyncd in a different package (systemd-timesyncd, like > systemd-cron) is not worth the effort...
I'm not sure why those packages have a Conflicts/Replaces: time-daemon After all, it should be possible to install those packages in parallel. At least for the client part. This brings me back to the question, what time-daemon stands for, the client or server part (or both)? And if packages depend on time-daemon, do they expect a (S)NTP client or server? Maybe the solution is, that chrony and openntpd drop those Conflicts/Replaces and only keep the Provides: time-daemon? Instead, their service unit could have a [Unit] Conflicts=systemd-timesyncd.service This was you decide at runtime, not install time, that only one service is active. This would need coordination with those maintainers i.e. someone driving this effort. Michael -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
