Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:49:47 -0400
From:      Chris Nehren <cnehren+freebsd-stable@pobox.com>
To:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Stale NTP software included in FreeBSD (RELEASE/STABLE/CURRENT)
Message-ID:  <20140903134946.GA24397@satori.lan>
In-Reply-To: <20140903120746.GI63085@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>
References:  <20140903061024.GA14382@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> <20140903120746.GI63085@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 14:07:46 +0200, Baptiste Daroussin wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 03, 2014 at 04:10:24PM +1000, John Marshall wrote:
> > ntp 4.2.4 is the version that shipped in all of the above releases and
> > is also included in 10-STABLE and 11-CURRENT at present.  ntp 4.2.4 was
> > superseded by the ntp 4.2.6 release on 12-Dec-2009.  Is there any
> > interest in getting a supported version of the ntp software into the
> > upcoming 10.1 release?  I would have thought that the latest patch
> > release of the stable ntp version (4.2.6p5 24-DEC-2011) would be
> > appropriate?  I know that the ntp folks are working on releasing 4.2.8
> > but it isn't quite there yet.
>=20
> One of the thing that makes updating ntp complicated it that is now
> depends on bison extension which our old yacc (as of freebsd 8 and 9),
> newer byacc (freebsd 10.0) does not support
> FreeBSD 10.1 and FreeBSD current have a newer byacc version that does
> support the said extension

This is the sort of complexity that supports an argument for
removing ntp from base altogether.  Why does it need to be there?
"Because it's always been there" is not good enough.  Why do we
still include the bloated, demonstrably insecure and dangerous
ntpd when openntpd is BSD-friendly and a lot simpler?  I can see
the argument for needing to keep accurate time, but that is not a
reason to include all of ntpd, is it?

--=20
Chris Nehren

--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2
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=AQr8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20140903134946.GA24397>