On 2014-10-24 20:11, A C wrote: > On 2014-10-17 04:08, Rob wrote: >> David Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>> On 17/10/2014 04:25, Phil W Lee wrote: >>> [] >>>> Can I upgrade by just swapping a newer binary in? >>>> I'm not really far enough up the FreeBSD learning curve to work out >>>> why I'm getting errors trying to build a newer one from source (I did >>>> at least try). >>> >>> I've put the Intel binaries I am currently using here: >>> >>> http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/FreeBSD-ntp.4.2.7p476.zip >>> >>> Be sure to take a backup of your own binaries first! No promises, but >>> perhaps nothing ventured, nothing gained? >> >> I know that this is not fixed in ntp-dev. It was mentioned by someone >> here when I discussed the problems of using ATOM in combination with >> a network clock source, the trouble with "prefer" etc. >> >> He had a patch that fixed both the "prefer" problem and the bug this >> thread is about. > > That would be me. I don't have a patch as you might think of one > (running a patch against source) but I do have the edits noted. I'm > still using an older development version p270 so I really can't submit a > patch anymore but I can certainly explain where the edits should go.
I'm still digging for other code I may have edited on other machines that cover the polling interval but I think that eliminating the prefer requirement actually stops the poll clamping. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
