Your message dated Sun, 10 Sep 2017 01:57:11 +0200
with message-id <82c1194c-cf6f-e0e5-3297-2d10045e2...@debian.org>
and subject line Re: Bug#850169: systemd should Provide: time-daemon
has caused the Debian Bug report #850169,
regarding systemd should Provide: time-daemon
to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact ow...@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)
--
850169: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=850169
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact ow...@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: systemd
Version: 232-8
Severity: minor
Dear Maintainers,
As systemd now comes with systemd-timesyncd, this package should
Provide: time-daemon, so packages depending on this virtual package
will have this dependency fulfilled without installing ntp.
Paride
--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
On Wed, 4 Jan 2017 19:16:10 +0100 Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote:
> 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.
>
Closing this bug report. As explained, adding Provides: time-daemon to
the systemd package would make other implementation uninstallable, and
we don't want that.
Instead those implementation now have the necessary
Conflicts=systemd-timesyncd.service so they are made the default at runtime.
Afaics, we only have a few packages which have Recommends or Suggests:
time-daemon. It's a bit unfortunate, that installing those packages
would pull in an NTP implementation even if not necessary. But you can
opt out of that and not install that alternative implementation.
--
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
--- End Message ---
_______________________________________________
Pkg-systemd-maintainers mailing list
Pkg-systemd-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pkg-systemd-maintainers
