On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 10:40 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> On Wed, Oct 31, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Phil Blundell <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2012-10-31 at 10:29 -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> >> Well, I cannot ask for a pool zone for OE or Yocto; it'd be good but >> >> it is not yet done and I prefer to have it merged and changed once it >> >> happens. >> > >> > The obvious problem with that approach is that "it" may never happen >> > (especially if you're relying on some as-yet-unidentified third party to >> > do the work) and, even if it does, arbitrarily many people might ship >> > the broken configuration in the meantime. Merging a change that we know >> > is wrong seems like a bad plan. >> >> It is better then a broken .service file IMO ;-) > > Well, I guess that's where we disagree. Can you elaborate on why having > no default NTP server in the metadata is such a crisis, and why none of > the other options I mentioned before is a suitable way to deal with the > problem?
It is not a problem to have no default NTP server but a broken .service file. Your alternatives are all good just I used too much time for something I am not using ... the proposed alternatives are good but someone needs to work on them. Just it. -- Otavio Salvador O.S. Systems E-mail: [email protected] http://www.ossystems.com.br Mobile: +55 53 9981-7854 http://projetos.ossystems.com.br _______________________________________________ Openembedded-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-devel
