Bug#422347: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Packaging ntpq seperately

2017-07-08 Thread Josip Rodin
On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 09:01:35AM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> > Yes, it's common to set up a network service in a way that only localhost
> > will access it. No, that doesn't conflict with the idea that server software
> > goes into server software packages and client software goes into client
> > software packages.
> 
> Well, patches accepted, but ntpq is not really the client for ntp (or
> the ntp protocol). It can be compared to a control program, which is
> often inside the server package (i.e. unbound-control in unbound).

I thought of responding to this by saying I could be persuaded to this
argument in the case of ntpdc, which resembles unbound-control, or rndc,
in that it actually exerts control over ntpd, yet ntpq was just a query
program that monitors ntpds rather than controls them...

But then I noticed that ntpq included commands like saveconfig,
config-from-file, ... And, conversely, ntpdc includes numerous *stats and
*info commands. It's hard to argue any matter of principle when
the underpinnings of the matter appear devoid of it.

Since nobody remembers the etch upgrade that had broken this, I guess the
only remaining argument would be practicality mentioned by the submitter of
#582128 - they want to run ntpq and ntpdc from a machine that has chrony
installed. That's severity wishlist rather than normal, though, because of
the lack of precedent with the aforementioned rndc and unbound-control.

-- 
 2. That which causes joy or happiness.



Bug#422347: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Packaging ntpq seperately

2017-07-07 Thread Bernhard Schmidt
Am 06.07.2017 um 22:06 schrieb Josip Rodin:

Hi Josip,

> I've read the discussion that happened after the message to -done and I'm at
> a loss for words - this kind of a decision would go against the BCP of some
> twenty years of Debian packaging.
> 
> Yes, it's common to set up a network service in a way that only localhost
> will access it. No, that doesn't conflict with the idea that server software
> goes into server software packages and client software goes into client
> software packages.

Well, patches accepted, but ntpq is not really the client for ntp (or
the ntp protocol). It can be compared to a control program, which is
often inside the server package (i.e. unbound-control in unbound).

ntpdate or sntp are NTP clients, which are already packaged seperately.

Bernhard