On 2014-04-25, Paul <tik-...@bodosom.net> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 4:36 PM, William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > >> Why shoul dit ship with no refclocks? ... DO you have the same opinion for >> serial >> port or parallel ports, or network drivers? > > > (Ignoring your mischaracterization of what I said and the strawman > arguments) because a negligible number of time consumers have a refclock. > Back in the day I recall a distro that had ntp-client and ntp-server > packages -- so I'm sure I'm not the first person to propose it.
More recent ntpd combine server and client in one program. Not sure when that was. > > Kernel pps is used by enough people that it should be compiled in by >> default. > > > I think you engage in a great deal of idle speculation. We have thousands > of clients served from three S2 servers (so 0% need for refclock support). > There are three S1 servers on campus (not yet in production). All three > required building NTPd, one required a driver patch and one required > building a kernel. As do you-- generalising from your one situation. Why did they require building ntpd? And my point is that it should not be required to build the kernel. Note that the number of your machines for which the people do not use serial or parallel ports is probably the same as those you claim do not use ntpd refclocks. (Note that just because they get time from your three servers does not mean that they do not also use say a gps refclock.) But our position will undoubtedly not change any kernel packager's mind. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
