[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       debian-devel
Subject:    Re: The future of src:ntp
From:       Tomas Pospisek <tpo2 () sourcepole ! ch>
Date:       2022-01-17 17:41:47
Message-ID: e9b9fd5c-a827-90d7-39c6-29d252957dde () sourcepole ! ch
[Download RAW message or body]

On 17.01.22 17:01, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:

> a couple of years ago (in 2017) I stepped up to help bring src:ntp back 
> in shape because I needed it for work. All uploads since that time have 
> been made by me. An RFH bug had been open the whole time and just 
> recently got the first message for five years, which made me remember my 
> plan.
> 
> Back then cleaning up the official ntp.org package in Debian was without 
> alternatives, because ntpsec was not born yet and chrony did not have 
> any traction in the Debian world (as far as I could tell).
> 
> However, development for ntp.org is slow, upstream still using BitKeeper 
> is cumbersome, and even the testsuite needs to be fixes on some 
> architectures for new releases. Both ntpsec and chrony are (from my POV) 
> the better alternatives now. To a point where I would rather use chrony 
> for new deployments, but I'm shying away from not using my own work 
> anymore for the lack of real-life testing.
> 
> I could just step down as a maintainer/uploader and have the ntp 
> packaging bitrot, but this would be a large disservice to our users 
> (unless someone else continues to maintain it). I think another option 
> would be to migrate to one of the alternatives for Bookworm.
> 
> ntpsec and ntp should be largely configuration compatible, so even a 
> takeover of the binary package names might be practical.
> 
> What do you think?

Sounds good to me.

Without your useful email I wouldn't even have been aware of the 
situation, so your email has already the useful effect of me planing 
migrating to ntpsec.

Thank you!
*t

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]