[OE-core] [PATCH] Add init script (sysv) support for busybox's ntpd

Laszlo Papp lpapp at kde.org
Thu Mar 20 12:44:47 UTC 2014


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



More information about the Openembedded-core mailing list