In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Robert Dodier" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On Mar 27, 7:35 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) wrote: > >> Robert Dodier wrote: >> > Well, even if the code is not changed, it would be extremely helpful >> > to document the actual behavior of ntpd -g. >> >> > That way people know that a ballpark date adjustment >> > is necessary before ntpd can do anything useful. >> > Even embedded systems guys read man pages .... >> >> Which would do you no good since we only distribute documentation in HTML. > >No, that's not so. It would indeed help. It would help to fix the HTML >documentation because the man page which I read was derived by >some 3rd party from the HTML. > >I did read the HTML page as well, and the relevant information about >the behavior of ntpd -g is not present there. I just want it to appear >somewhere in the ntp documentation. Other people seem to have >an axe to grind about document formats. I don't care about that.
I don't know if you read all the posts that your query triggered, but we already established that the 34-year limit was a bug in older versions of ntpd, now fixed such that the limit is the 68 years inherent in the precision of NTP timestamps, so the documentation obviously can't be changed to say that there is a 34-year problem - maybe it could say that there used to be one though... --Per Hedeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
