In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 news... 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
