On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 10:46:24PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > Would it make sense to ship systemd-timesyncd disabled by default in > > buster and add a README to enable it only if the user really decides > > to enable it? (Maybe also documenting this in the release notes). > > I think this would break more setups then it fixes. > The default behaviour of systemd-timesyncd has been since two releases > to be enabled by default. We can't easily change that. > > > That would be the most simple solution for stable that I can think, > > as it would reduce the number of packages to change to just one. > > Unfortunately I think that disabling systemd-timesyncd by default is one > of the most intrusive changes. After all, systemd is installed by > default (and thus systemd-timesyncd enabled by default). I fear this is > a no-go.
Ok, in such case, the only other solution which comes to mind is what you proposed in the message I was replying to, i.e. this: > I guess at this point it is best to ask chrony, ntp, openntpd, ntpsec > and virtualbox [1] to drop the Conflicts= line again. If I'm not mistaken, this is how it was done in stretch, so the fix would be as "conservative" as it can be. I would not worry about the number of packages that need to be changed being "high". If you as systemd maintainer believe that this is the best solution for buster, I would hope that the other maintainers agree. Thanks.
