[ntp:hackers] hackers] NTP software numbering

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Wed Dec 24 23:55:31 UTC 2014


Hal,

On 12/25/2014 12:08 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
>
> stenn at ntp.org said:
>> We're talking about changing from:
>>   ntpd 4.2.8p1-beta1 at 1.3268-o Wed Dec 24 21:02:52 UTC 2014 (2)
>> to:
>>   ntpd 4 v2.8.1-beta1 at 1.3268-o Wed Dec 24 21:02:52 UTC 2014 (2)
>
> Does anybody but a geek care what the protocol version is?
>
> My vote would be to drop the protocol from the package/tar name.  That leaves
> you with major/minor/whatever to use as is convenient.  There is a tradition
> of distros sometimes adding their own patches so whatever you do should leave
> room for that.
>
> I don't care much about the details of the version string that programs print
> out.
>
> If/when we ever change the protocol in a way that matters we can revisit the
> issue.

Does not fly very well.

When NTPv5 protocol comes along, there will be a ntp4 v2.<something> 
which will be replaced by ntp5 v1.<something>. Both will have a ntpd in it.

Some packaging maintainers may want to maintain ntp4 in parallel with 
ntp5 until ntp5 has settled in peoples mind. Both do however provide the 
basic service of ntp.

The NTPv5 will likely contain several elements of properties which is 
unlike todays NTPv4, so I suspect that it won't be a direct drop-in 
replacement, which is why it's also a new major-release.

NTPv5 is still an unknown animal, but we might be toying with it within 
a few years or so, who knows, and then this will come back and haunt us.

Besides, moving from ntp-4.2.8p0 to ntp-2.8.1 is not working well 
either, number revision-wise, while moving to ntp-4.2.8p0 to ntp4-2.8.1 
works, but is indeed quirky, but sufficiently good in my mind.

Cheers,
Magnus


More information about the hackers mailing list