[ntp:questions] Re: uk pool problem

Per Hedeland per at hedeland.org
Sat Sep 2 18:42:13 UTC 2006

In article <ywn9y7t2hngo.fsf at ntp1.isc.org> Harlan Stenn
<stenn at ntp.isc.org> writes:
>I'm really not sure about this.
>If somebody expressed an interest in fixing this problem, I'd be inclined to
>ask them if they were interested in fixing the other problems with ntpdate.
>If they said "yes" then we'd have a maintainer for ntpdate and this would
>not be an issue.

So is it deprecated or not? If it is, it would seem very strange to
consider enhancements (which was the point of my tongue-in-cheek
question earlier). Or are you saying that the *only* reason it is
deprecated is that there is no maintainer? That would certainly be

FWIW, I can see several objectively valid reasons to deprecate ntpdate,
and even a subjective one like "we don't like it" would have to be
considered valid - obviously no one can *demand* that you support some
particular piece of software (at least not without handing over money).

The problem that I see, and that leads to this tiresome re-hashing, is
that the arguments brought forward by those that want to have ntpdate
deprecated are almost uniformly bogus - like the absurd suggestion in
this thread that even though ntpdate allows you to specify multiple
servers, it wouldn't "do anything special" if one of them was 6 years
behind the others. This of course leaves you wondering if the desire to
deprecate ntpdate is actually based on nothing but ignorance.

Now you are saying that ntpdate has lots of problems - I can't really
deny that, but that's at least in part because I don't know what you're
refering to. If it's just those listed on bugzilla, I'll have to say
that I couldn't find anything significant in need of a fix there (I can
elaborate if wanted). But maybe you're thinking of other problems?

--Per Hedeland
per at hedeland.org

More information about the questions mailing list