On Sat, 2006-06-17 at 01:24 +0200, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> I actually have no idea why it was splitted in 2 packages. Afaik
> the only difference is that one has all the clocks build in, and
> the other doesn't. This results in a difference of the size of
> the binary, 200K versus 400K, and I guess
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Anyway, I think we should either go for having 1 package
> providing both, or have ntp-server be a dummy and empty packages
> just having the depends. Maybe we should move those binaries in
> ntp-server to the ntp package?
I think dropping ntp-simple and ntp-refclock and putt
On Sat, Jun 17, 2006 at 12:29:25AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Another thought is to fold the ntp-simple and ntp-refclock packages into
> ntp-server and handle the choice via alternatives or some other simple
> switch.
I actually have no idea why it was splitted in 2 packages. Afaik
the on
Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> ntp-server does not create the user, but it's useless without an
> ntp-simple or ntp-refclock. Nothing in ntp-server itself
> _should_ be needing the init.d script, it just provides it. It's
> like a "-common" package.
Well, I outlined the two possibilities earlier. If you
Hi,
Current svn looks like:
Package: ntp-server
Depends: ntp-simple (>> 1:4.2.0a+stable-6) | ntp-refclock (>>
1:4.2.0a+stable-6), ntp
Package: ntp-refclock
Depends: ${shlibs:Depends}, ${misc:Depends}, adduser
Recommends: ntp-server (= ${Source-Version})
Package: ntp-simple
Depends: ${shlibs:Dep
5 matches
Mail list logo
