Mikolaj Kucharski:
> This year we will have positive leap second[1] I've recently got asked
> how OpenNTPD handles leap seconds and did anything change from 2012[2].
Nothing has changed. OpenNTPD does nothing with leap seconds.
I think the basic attitude is that (1) they're rare enough that we
c
Hi,
This year we will have positive leap second[1] I've recently got asked
how OpenNTPD handles leap seconds and did anything change from 2012[2].
I've looked at the source code and I don't see any changes from that
time until now that would made me think OpenNTPD handles leap seconds
differently
Phil Pennock wrote:
> > Can anybody explain to me, or point me to an explanation, why leap
> > seconds are a concern for ntpd at all rather than for zoneinfo?
>
> Unix systems keep UTC (typically without 61-second-minute support)
> rather than TAI.
No, Unix systems count seconds since the epoch
* Christian Weisgerber [2012-03-04 21:46]:
> Henning Brauer wrote:
>
> > > A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
> >
> > well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
>
> The problem is that OpenNTPd stopped being portable when it started
* Phil Pennock [2012-03-04 21:05]:
> On 2012-03-04 at 19:30 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Phil Pennock [2012-03-04 13:23]:
> > > https://github.com/syscomet/openntpd
> >
> > please note that it takes a bit more for a new portable release,
> > namely, at least tests on the major platforms.
>
On 2012-03-04 at 20:36 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> Phil Pennock wrote:
>
> > There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
> > configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's "leapfile"
> > directive, to use a distributed leap-seconds file to let ntpd k
Phil Pennock wrote:
> There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
> configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's "leapfile"
> directive, to use a distributed leap-seconds file to let ntpd know of
> the leapseconds epoch rollover.
Can anybody explain to me,
Henning Brauer wrote:
> > A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
>
> well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
The problem is that OpenNTPd stopped being portable when it started
assuming that it could retrieve the adjtime() time delta a
On 2012-03-04 at 19:30 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Phil Pennock [2012-03-04 13:23]:
> > https://github.com/syscomet/openntpd
>
> please note that it takes a bit more for a new portable release,
> namely, at least tests on the major platforms.
Absolutely. Couldn't find a test suite, or a ch
* Phil Pennock [2012-03-04 13:23]:
> On 2012-03-03 at 12:24 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> > * Phil Pennock [2012-03-02 16:32]:
> > > A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
> > well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
> > that said, otoh
On 2012-03-03 at 12:24 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
> * Phil Pennock [2012-03-02 16:32]:
> > A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
>
> well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
>
> that said, otoh there we no changes regarding leap secon
* Phil Pennock [2012-03-02 16:32]:
> A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
that said, otoh there we no changes regarding leap seconds afterwards.
> leap-second indicators found from servers but
[checked archives, FAQ, website, etc]
There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's "leapfile"
directive, to use a distributed leap-seconds file to let ntpd know of
the leapseconds epoch rollover.
A brief skim of t
13 matches
Mail list logo
