On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:47PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote: > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Otavio Salvador > <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador > >> <ota...@ossystems.com.br> wrote: > >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi <k...@dominion.thruhere.net> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com> > >>>>> het volgende geschreven: > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> +PEER=127.0.0.1 > >>>>>> > >>>>>> That doesn't seem like a very useful default. We also can't use the > >>>>>> NTP pool by default, so this should copy the behaviour of the ntpd > >>>>>> package in meta-networking and default to no peers, and not start if > >>>>>> none are specified. > >>>>> > >>>>> And the initscript is missing LSB headers. > >>>> > >>>> Just like the other similar scripts. > >>> > >>> This does not mean we ought to make the problem worse so add it for > >>> new ones. If you are in good mood, send a fix for the others too ;) > >> > >> I do not think this is a problem. Could you please point out what > >> functionality it breaks? Send patches for the others, and I will make > >> this cosmetic change for this one, too. Consistency is more important > >> than a mess of different styles, especially when it comes to cosmetic > >> changes like this. > > > > Koen and I think it is important. So consider this my NACK for the patch as > > is. > > You are free to NACK without an explanation why it is important, but > do not expect it to weigh much that way, at least in my eyes, based on > that you are not even a maintainer as far as I know. > > I also think that it is not constructive to give NACK without > answering the questions, and only telling again "It is important". > Please be more constructive and explain the real issue. That is a > better way of convincing a contributor than telling the person it is > bad what you are doing because it is bad. > > There was someone today publishing a blog post how important it is to > become pragmatic to get things done. Currently, cosmetic changes are > just in the way of getting things done. The feature shall be more > important than cosmetic changes. I saw this frightening away > contributors, and features actually not getting into projects. > > That being said, if you can explain your reasoning, and I find it > reasonable and worthy, I will update it.
I don't remember the exact issue I was seeing in runtime with systemd and SysV scripts which were missing LSB headers, but it was handling them somehow different. If you search meta-oe git log, then you'll find many commit messages where LSB headers were added when e.g. importing some older recipe from oe-classic, that's good enough reason to add them to new ntp script, isn't it? -- Martin 'JaMa' Jansa jabber: martin.ja...@gmail.com
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list Openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org http://lists.openembedded.org/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
