On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 04:41:56PM +0200, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> Hi Samuel,
>
> > > please find attached a patch to simplify the ntpd plugin peer
> > > configuration code; this patch is necessary to make the plugin
> > > compatibile with busybox implementation of ntpd, which does not
> > > supp
Hi Samuel,
> > please find attached a patch to simplify the ntpd plugin peer
> > configuration code; this patch is necessary to make the plugin
> > compatibile with busybox implementation of ntpd, which does not
> > support a configuration file.
> Unfortunately, busybox's ntpd -p option is not co
Hi Davide,
On Tue, Oct 05, 2010 at 11:59:02AM +0200, Davide Cavalca wrote:
> Hello everybody,
>
> please find attached a patch to simplify the ntpd plugin peer
> configuration code; this patch is necessary to make the plugin
> compatibile with busybox implementation of ntpd, which does not
> sup
Hi Tomasz,
> > Means that a simple entry like [ "server:901" ] would be the generic one
> > and [ "http://server:901";, "ftp://server:109"; ] could identify different
> > servers.
> >
> That seems fine, let's do that way.
please update your documentation patch and start working on the
impleme
Hi
On 05/10/10 12:41, ext Marcel Holtmann wrote:
Means that a simple entry like [ "server:901" ] would be the generic one
and [ "http://server:901";, "ftp://server:109"; ] could identify different
servers.
That seems fine, let's do that way.
Best regards,
Tomasz
__
Hello everybody,
please find attached a patch to simplify the ntpd plugin peer
configuration code; this patch is necessary to make the plugin
compatibile with busybox implementation of ntpd, which does not
support a configuration file.
Best regards,
Davide Cavalca
>From e392831631f55ce7a7ff2898b
Hi Tomasz,
> > Meaning a list of "socks://xxx:901 ftp://yyy:222"; is a perfect
> > description of proxies. And that is a lot easier to configure than
> > having to have separate properties for different protocol types.
> >
> Why not doing it that way now? This seems indeed the smartest way:
>
Hi,
On 04/10/10 17:47, ext Marcel Holtmann wrote:
Meaning a list of "socks://xxx:901 ftp://yyy:222"; is a perfect
description of proxies. And that is a lot easier to configure than
having to have separate properties for different protocol types.
Why not doing it that way now? This seems ind
