From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 3 13:50:04 2014 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 826FA42C for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (smtp.pobox.com [208.72.237.35]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 385871AD5 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 13:50:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA09A34D0A for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:49:56 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; s=sasl; bh=FsQlhpH+rSekZPAJlRRiZRMuz7c=; b=oZF7Dl5 ynxa7b4FhDbI1BFhtTnabFzflyFrWAgq9JL5eF46y0p2kw+ml8v6X5/WL3F/4P4+ lqYywPFwH9gSslzw//jScDgtWE0+GaHnlP/nWgcuvbV8LUx3fMJJwr4V4kIxoJNk 6848DXEamfh6Ig99nuc1kU9tdcPX+oEPMviQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=date:from:to :subject:message-id:references:mime-version:content-type :in-reply-to; q=dns; s=sasl; b=veG1slf7hMyxhbh1EUox4cVjZTd02qClq 3+t0QZyjn3UOVEi9BJjO0UZL4eIhiOBibitcujacaYzqMOK7W07bbIDgb9sPKKK2 CiJuIaZsOeh9k7tla2uTng/8aSaT4jLwMhxeQ0yBqp/IsffswAZ6NtJVcKqDgV9C AjhQqj3QXE= Received: from pb-smtp0. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B099C34D09 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:49:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (unknown [50.90.2.70]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp0.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3757634CE8 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:49:47 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 09:49:47 -0400 From: Chris Nehren To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Stale NTP software included in FreeBSD (RELEASE/STABLE/CURRENT) Message-ID: <20140903134946.GA24397@satori.lan> Mail-Followup-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <20140903061024.GA14382@rwpc15.gfn.riverwillow.net.au> <20140903120746.GI63085@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140903120746.GI63085@ivaldir.etoilebsd.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2AEB599C-3371-11E4-A81E-BD2DC4D60FE0-49531120!pb-smtp0.pobox.com X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Sep 2014 13:50:04 -0000 --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 iQJbBAABAgBFBQJUBxx6PhSAAAAAABUAIHBrYS1hZGRyZXNzQGdudXBnLm9yZ2Nu ZWhyZW4rZnJlZWJzZC1zdGFibGVAcG9ib3guY29tAAoJEBHA+GJAM0vP6kYP/3ZL Py9ZpmmWjaw6RYlLEn3FjAOiHixPXhFi2uAjooi2P9ZATzOqEGXSlOPpTrLqab9V 2i15zRgJUBhPcIq0/Vh5/tOiHCjFzKz2C+qbHeSarMOvJB4q1ysU3g9LT9yzvnGb 1C8nyRtsf0bQw3dXYERD70pbcha31qt0eey82DNSErpPDyVhP96bqjOw8z3SK0YN /pCUBTaXer7knQaxcNEfvJzcALZ6u4qTmRi0Vt0yi5aHgb/WyRdxDapyiYELb/JP yqGHXnnGEc1dZwlwt+Qx2ZmD2Ncs8TSb1MpW0fZK9vCIa2gIna9WgFwSez/fZHOA 8Bgc+DDDHJD3aXnc1nvk2sLZ/zOBamvjNCSJVDTdYEJAO9LuQ3p7Ol5nyLqIJyDw Nr6KGHlty1f6p453NOVmsR9/spBNNGlpVoPxJrJMMToAgkY2sspcxFECQ1QZraq7 I1etjEE/xINASC3kr19qGx3Lj45K8KjbUg6ErCCjPJRKmuc1QwuIHebxrtU3jgLj AxS5q1WXOoGw8YRxV7zqkjhIrh04FrDC8Y2SuDN9FjQUV0XKYdjAH/rjHeGhmKJF 6Br+MQo49eGa641flcp8Tyr68I7qeROVco3uc+gutjOFYzNf2j7wdjvlHgXLTJxf jklNEJiQoWJLK0623YJElj30WUWtJ6VUEPLodXVO =AQr8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--