On Tue, Jun 20, 2017 at 08:45:35AM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > Am 20.06.2017 um 03:33 schrieb Vincent Lefevre: > > On 2017-06-19 23:55:04 +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote: > >> Marking as wontfix since this is not going to be changed in stable > >> releases. > > > > Most bugs are in that case, so "wontfix" is improper. What matters > > is that the bug will be fixed for the next stable version. > > I'm not sure whether we do want to split this up. If we don't plan to > ever split it "wontfix" (and eventually closing) is an acceptable solution. > > Kurt, what's your take on this?
I have no problem with splitting it. ntpq can be used to talk to remote hosts, ntpdc in theory too but it might be more problematic. But I never used either to talk to a remote host. The default ntp.conf doesn't allow you to do so. There have also been many security bugs that are only relevant if you allow to use those tools, including amplification attacks. So in theory it could be useful to monitor other hosts ntp status, and could then be used if you use ntpdate or sntpd to synch the the local clock, but I think in practice it's not really useful to split it. Kurt
