On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:37:43PM -0400, J William Piggott wrote:
> On 03/16/2015 06:33 AM, Karel Zak wrote:
> > On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 04:26:45PM +0100, Benno Schulenberg wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015, at 20:18, J William Piggott wrote:
> >>> Replace references to the depreciated ntpdate with sntp.
> >>
> >> s/depreciated/deprecated/
> >>
> >>> -.BR \%ntpdate\ \-q " , or " \%date\ \-Ins
> >>> +.BR \%sntp ", or " \%date\ \-Ins
> >>
> >> Hmm, maybe it's a bit to early to delete the mention of ntpdate?
> >> My fairly recent Linux Mint doesn't have sntp yet. Maybe add
> >> sntp to the list instead of replacing ntpdate?
> >
> > Good point, it would be better to use something like "ntpdate or more
> > recent sntp".
>
> No, it is not a good point. I assume he means *too* early, that's the
> funniest thing I've heard all day. No wait, "doesn't have sntp yet",
> that's the funniest thing I've heard all day.
>
> The sntp client and ntpdate are both from the same project and
> approximately the same age. Nobody was interested in maintaining ntpdate
> so it *depreciated* over many years before being officially *deprecated*
> by the project.
You miss the point, after util-linux update, someone will read the man
page and then type "sntp" on command line, but because he has old /
stupid distro it will be unsuccessful. What next if there is no any
pointer to any other alternative?
You're absolutely right with ntpdate vs. sntp, but it seems reality is
so painful that people still have systems where is no sntp.
> Before I added ntpdate two months ago, the hwclock man-page had gone 20
> years without it. Now there's concern over removing it?
OK :-) I'm going to apply the patches, it's nothing critical.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
