On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:46:31PM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > 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.
I'd sympathise with that if I could understand why cleaning up the breakage would actually be harmful. > > > 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? It would have to be done in a system-tools-backends maintainer script. I'm not really sure why it's any better to do that in system-tools-backends vs. in ntp; your argument is that it shouldn't be cleaned up because it somehow conveys useful information that it's broken, so how is system-tools-backends supposed to know that it's the one that created the zero-length file rather than something else, given that there's by definition no information in that file? I don't see how it's any better that way. Regards, -- Colin Watson [cjwat...@debian.org] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org