Re: [PATCH] Add init script (sysv) support for busybox's ntpd

[Martin Jansa <martin.jansa@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3119 bytes --]

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:44:47PM +0000, Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 12:26 PM, Otavio Salvador
> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> > On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org> wrote:
> >> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Otavio Salvador
> >> <otavio@ossystems.com.br> wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 8:34 AM, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@kde.org> wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Koen Kooi <koen@dominion.thruhere.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Op 20 mrt. 2014, om 11:45 heeft Burton, Ross <ross.burton@intel.com> het volgende geschreven:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 20 March 2014 03:26, Laszlo Papp <lpapp@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.Jansa@gmail.com

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 205 bytes --]