On ons, 2010-12-08 at 13:40 +0000, Colin Watson wrote: > > I don't really agree with these changes. An empty ntp.conf is an error > > and should not be masked. > > What useful information can this state possibly convey?
That state that something is broken. > > Why not just fix the GNOME side and let that be it? > > Think of the user. system-tools-backends has left the empty ntp.conf > around, without any hint to the user about this; now installing the ntp > package (which gnome-system-tools does for you behind the scenes if you > ask it to set up time synchronisation, but might of course also happen > by hand) incomprehensibly still leaves an empty ntp.conf, which as you > say is an error. In what way is this better than just dealing with the > problem by removing the empty file so that a proper one can be put in > place? I don't see who this benefits. Can't system-tools-backends clean up the file that it had erroneously placed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
