Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] busybox ntpd vs rdate (r28612)

2011-10-27 Thread Jo-Philipp Wich
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi. > If I understood you correctly, it is enough to just use the busybox ntpd > and no ntpclient package needs to be selected separately? Yes. > Is there any need for luci-app-ntpc in the build or can it also be left > out? Can be left out. > Is

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] busybox ntpd vs rdate (r28612)

2011-10-27 Thread Hannu Nyman
On 21:59, Jo-Philipp Wich wrote: or is ntpd really integrated into busybox, making the ntpd client package obsolete? Yes, unless you need a full featured NTP suite for a particular reason, in this case installing full ntpd will remove the busybox one in postinstall so that they do not clash - th

Re: [OpenWrt-Devel] busybox ntpd vs rdate (r28612)

2011-10-27 Thread Jo-Philipp Wich
I am not Felix but as I did the change, let me answer here. > I understand the rationale of the change from busybox to ntpd in > standard. Does that mean though that the ntpd package has to be chosen > in the .config file No. > or is ntpd really integrated into busybox, making > the ntpd client

[OpenWrt-Devel] busybox ntpd vs rdate (r28612)

2011-10-27 Thread Hanno Schupp
Hi Felix, I understand the rationale of the change from busybox to ntpd in standard. Does that mean though that the ntpd package has to be chosen in the .config file or is ntpd really integrated into busybox, making the ntpd client package obsolete? Please advise. Regards Hanno Schupp __