[pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#462862: Bug#462862: explain changes in ntp.conf

[Ross Boylan]

On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 00:11 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:44:44PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote:
> > Package: ntp
> > Version: 1:4.2.4p4+dfsg-3
> > Severity: wishlist
> > 
> > 
> > When upgrading from dfsg-2 to dfsg-3 the default ntp.conf file has changed from
> > -------------------------
> > # pool.ntp.org maps to about 1000 low-stratum NTP servers.
> > # Your server will pick a different set every time it starts up.
> > #  *** Please consider joining the pool! ***
> > #  *** <http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html> ***
> > # maxpoll works around a kernel bug in 2.6.18 and earlier
> > server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7
> > server 1.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7
> > server 2.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7
> > server 3.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7
> > -------------------------------------------
> 
> This "maxpoll" was never in any version that we provided.  I would also
> not recommend setting that.

Oops: I checked and I inserted this to deal with "kernel time sync
error".  https://support.ntp.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=780 has more info
on it, including the claim that a kernel bug is involved.  (The bug,
unfortunately, has a rather long back and forth).
> 
> > --------------------------------------------
> > # pool.ntp.org maps to about 1000 low-stratum NTP servers.  Your server will
> > # pick a different set every time it starts up.  Please consider joining the
> > # pool: <http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html>
> > server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic
> > server 1.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic
> > server 2.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic
> > server 3.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic
> > -------------------------------------------------
> 
> What has changed was the comment above the server entries, not the
> server entries themself.
> 
> > It would be helpful to know if the change arises from an assumption
> > that the kernel will be > 2.6.18, or from some other fix.  I have a
> > system that is still on 2.6.18, and I don't know if the new conf file
> > is safe for it.
> 
> I have no idea why you think any of this is related to a kernel version.
> ntpd should be able to work with any kernel version.
Well, the comment and the bug above report a problem with some kernel
versions.

Sorry: this is clearly a bogus wish, and would be OK to close.  However,
I'm still not sure what to do about the kernel timesync error.  I think
I'm seeing it periodically on 2.6.22 systems as well.

Ross