On Mon, 27 Mar 2023 11:15:20 +0200 Miroslav Lichvar <mlichv...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:12:04 +0000 Richard Lewis > <richard.lewis.deb...@googlemail.com> wrote: > > Presumably the release notes should also say that most people should > > consider systemd-timesyncd as this is priority:standard (since at > > least buster, but i dont remember seeing this in release notes then)? > > - i assume the idea is that if you dont have any special needs beyond > > "set the clock" should use systemd-timesyncd, And people who need > > extra features (like running their own ntp server) should install > > ntpsec / chrony / opennntpd ? > > Recommending timesyncd as an NTP client to replace ntpd would not be a > good idea, especially if you consider the default configuration using > servers from pool.ntp.org.
Isnt that effectively what debian has done by setting systemd-timesync to "standard" priority? if that's a bad decision, you should make the case to debian to change it i would think? (standard = installed by default, per debian policy) > individual servers cannot be > relied on. They are run by volunteers. Some are well maintained, some > are not. like debian packages :p > timesyncd needs to be configured with a reliable server to work well. > Canonical maintains their own NTP servers and uses them by default in > Ubuntu. That makes senses. Debian uses pool.ntp.org, so it should > recommend a proper NTP client for a reliable service. sounds like something beyond the scope of release-notes... if no-one else does, i can draft some text that says - ntp is dropped (do we know why?). ntpsec is a direct replacement, but there is also chrony - and, if you do not need the strong guarantees of correct clock, systemd-timesyncd is part of a standard debian installation thoughts?