Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 08:21:27 -0500 (EST) From: Andre Guibert de Bruet <andy@siliconlandmark.com> To: Doug White <dwhite@gumbysoft.com> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ntpdate behavior changes between 4.x, 5.x and CURRENT Message-ID: <20050218081633.K637@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> In-Reply-To: <20050217183425.O53092@carver.gumbysoft.com> References: <20050217140951.R637@alpha.siliconlandmark.com> <20050217183425.O53092@carver.gumbysoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Doug White wrote: > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005, Andre Guibert de Bruet wrote: > >> This is the output of ntpdate on a 4.11 machine: >> alpha# ntpdate -b time-b.nist.gov > /dev/null >> alpha# > > ntpd 4.1.0 > >> The following is output of ntpdate on a 5.3-stable machine: >> vnode# ntpdate -b time-b.nist.gov > /dev/null >> host found : time-b.nist.gov >> vnode# > > ntpd 4.1.1a > >> The following is the output of ntpdate on a CURRENT machine: >> bling# ntpdate -b time-b.nist.gov > /dev/null >> bling# > > ntpd 4.2.0 + patch to suppress those messages, which was obtained from the > upstream code. > > So the answer is "Because the vendor put it there, and we hid it again in > -CURRENT." Are there any plans to MFC ntpd 4.2.0? If adapting the patch for RELENG_5 (And 4.1.1a) would make the process any easier, could I get my mittens on it? Andy | Andre Guibert de Bruet | Enterprise Software Consultant > | Silicon Landmark, LLC. | http://siliconlandmark.com/ >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050218081633.K637>