Marco d'Itri wrote on 18/01/2022: > On Jan 18, Michael Biebl <bi...@debian.org> wrote: > >> If "ntp" the binary package would become a transitional package that >> installs chrony, that'd be fine with me if that eases the transition. > I am not sure that this would be practical since they cannot share the > same configuration. > I have no objections if somebody wants to work on packaging ntpsec, but > I do not think that either ntp or ntpsec should be promoted over chrony > nowadays.
But ntpsec is already packaged and actively maintained, which is why I propose making ntp a transitional package installing ntpsec. After all bin:ntp has always been a specific NTP implementation, I think it's OK if it's replaced by an almost compatible fork, less OK if a completely different implementation is brought in instead. Dropping ntp altogether will certainly surprise some users. Paride
