Bug#552882: r267 - in /ntp/trunk/debian: changelog patches/mod_nano.patch patches/series

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 05:53:47PM -0000, petere@... wrote:
> URL: http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/pkg-ntp/?sc=1&rev=267
> Log:
> Fixed FTBFS because of missing MOD_NANO definition (closes: #552882)

I didn't catch up with all my mails yet from the past 3 weeks, but
I wonder why it complains about that.  So far we've been building
without nano kernel support, because STA_NANO (?) wasn't defined in
the headers.

I believe this to be a bug in the libc6-dev headers, and would
rather have them get this fixed.

Ubuntu recently started shipping ntp with nano support.  You
should probably also look at their patch.  I had a discussion
with them, but I think the Cc always failed to reach anybody.

Also note that ntpd with nano support will not behave properly
on kernels that don't support the nano kernel.  That is, kernels
before 2.6.26.  See https://support.ntp.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=888
for a description of the problem.

This is something I would like to address before we enable nano
support in ntpd.


Kurt




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Peter Eisentraut-3]

On ons, 2009-11-04 at 19:21 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> Also note that ntpd with nano support will not behave properly
> on kernels that don't support the nano kernel.  That is, kernels
> before 2.6.26.  See https://support.ntp.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=888
> for a description of the problem.
>
> This is something I would like to address before we enable nano
> support in ntpd.

I suppose we could also define MOD_NANO to 0 instead to avoid the whole
nano business.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 07:21:57PM +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
>
> Also note that ntpd with nano support will not behave properly
> on kernels that don't support the nano kernel.  That is, kernels
> before 2.6.26.  See https://support.ntp.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=888
> for a description of the problem.
>
> This is something I would like to address before we enable nano
> support in ntpd.

So I've been testing this.  With the version like it was, on
a 2.6.22 kernel things broke.  In my cases it stayed with an
offset around 0.11 s, and the frequenty got set to 0 and stayed
that way.

Running with a patched version that detects the nano kernel
it behaves properly on both 2.6.22 and 2.6.26.  The 2.6.26
kernel also indicates that it runnig in nano mode.


Kurt




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-REQUEST@...
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@...