Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> strom...@nexgo.de said:
> > I think that's still perpetuating a mistake. This whole business of having
> > to specify two servers (or refclocks) for the same thing should go away.
>
> There is a fundamental issue. With a PPS, there really are two sources of
> time. Internally, ntpd needs two different handles so you can see both sets
> of info on ntpq -peers and clockstats.
Agreed. This is a specialization of my case that the declaration language
should be channel-focused, not deviced-focused.
> Normally, each PPS has an associated serial stream. It would be good if
> there were a clean way to specify that rather than using the prefer kludge.
I'm open to proposals. I love designing minilanguages and DSLs, so I
am totally up for a friendly technical wrangle about this. :-)
The current new syntax has just these changes:
1. Magic driver-type numbers are replaced by driver shortnames
2. server 127.127.{t}.{u} -> refclock {typename} unit {u}
3. fudge ceases to be a separate command; its option grammar is glued
to the end of the refclock part.
This is a pretty minimal change. It has the dual advantage that it is (a) easy
to explain to people familiar with the old syntax, and (b) significantly
simpler for newbies. I think it is therefore at a sweet spot that we
shouldn't wander away from without good reason.
That said, I'm totally willing to hear good reasons.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
