On Nov 14, 2007 9:02 PM, Brian Utterback <Brian.Utterback at sun.com> wrote: > Okay, to spell it out, there are replacements for xntpd, xntpdc that > have different names, > (ntpd, ntpdc) so they could coexist.
Why would you want them to coexist? To me this seems like a clear case for replacement. > > There are replacements for ntpdate, ntpq and ntptrace which have the > same name, but > they are pretty much backwards compatible. This is something I will be > looking at > more closely to see if there are any caveats. I may be reading the man pages incorrectly, but the internal working of these three commands do not seem to be committed interfaces. > There is a manifest and method to go with ntpd. The method is called > xntp and the > manifest is ntp.xml. So, the methods could happily co-exist, but the > manifest has > a problem. I suppose we could call the manifest ntp4.xml and the method ntp. > Unfortunately, SMF currently is happy accepting "ntp" when a FMRI is > expected. > Since running ntpd and xntpd are mutually exclusive, it would certainly > be nice > to have them both in a single manifest, but since we will be delivering > ntpd into > the SFW consolidation and xntpd is in ON, this is problematic. > > On the other hand, we might very well be able to replace all the current > bits with > the new ones. The ntpd and xntpd daemons are very nearly compatible and > accept > very nearly the same configuration options. Or I should say that ntpd is > backwards > compatible with xntpd, except for the keywords that we added at Sun. > Again, I > will be looking at the compatibility issues more closely. > > But there still are the man pages for ntpdate, ntpq and ntptrace which > are already installed. Again my feeling is that unless there is a reason to keep both around, I would definitely have ntpd replace xntpd. (My understanding is that ntpd supports v4 of the NT, while xntpd only supports up to v3. ntpd is as far as I can tell the official successor to xntpd. (Also it seems the BSDes have replaced xntpd with ntpd.) -Brian > > > > James Carlson wrote: > > Brian Gupta writes: > > > >> I would require all ntp related packages to be removed as a preinstall > >> action. My only concern would be backing up the config files. Are they > >> compatible between the two versions? > >> > > > > Yuck. > > > > I'd just deliver the new files to a different location (or under a > > different name) so that there is no conflict. You can then safely > > switch back and forth as needed without mucking with packages. > > > > Better still, non-conflicting packaging is one of the fundamental ARC > > requirements. You don't need to be best-practice-compliant to post > > beta test code, but I'd suggest that it's a good idea just in the > > interest of avoiding unintended trouble. > > > > > > -- - Brian Gupta http://opensolaris.org/os/project/nycosug/
