Changes since OpenNTPD 3.9p1 ========================== After a long hiatus, the latest version of OpenNTPD is available once again in a portable release. * Support for a new build infrastructure based on the LibreSSL framework. Source code is integrated directly from the OpenBSD tree with few manual changes, easing maintenance. * Removed support for several OSes pending test reports and updated portability code. * Supports the Simple Network Time Protocol version 4 as described in RFC 5905 * Added route virtualization (rdomain) support. * Added ntpctl(8), which allows for querying ntpd(8) at runtime. * Finer-grained clock adjustment via adjfreq / ntp_adjtime where available. * Improved latency on heavily-loaded machines.
Sweet! That's good timing, I was just considering switching to chrony due to the staleness of the last portable release. I'll take a look at this and put together an ebuild. It looks like it already includes pid file support, but I'll need to review the other patches and see if any of them are still relevant. Probably be 1-2 weeks before I've got something to submit for review/testing.
Created attachment 393742 [details] updated ebuild
Created attachment 393744 [details, diff] patch to fix ntp drift file location
Created attachment 393746 [details, diff] patch to use gentoo ntp pool
Created attachment 393748 [details, diff] patch to fix /run path
Created attachment 393750 [details, diff] patch to document SIGUSR1
Created attachment 393752 [details, diff] patch to warn if -s fails to set time
Created attachment 393754 [details] updated conf file
Created attachment 393756 [details] updated init file
Created attachment 393758 [details] updated systemd unit file
Hmm, portage considers the current version "newer" than this new version, how should that be handled?
@Paul: Looks good to me, could you create a big patch against gx86 for me. (In reply to Paul B. Henson from comment #11) > Hmm, portage considers the current version "newer" than this new version, > how should that be handled? @QA: How would we perform this version bump from openntpd-20080406-r9 to openntpd-5.7p1 correctly?
> (In reply to Paul B. Henson from comment #11) > > Hmm, portage considers the current version "newer" than this new version, > > how should that be handled? > @QA: How would we perform this version bump from openntpd-20080406-r9 to > openntpd-5.7p1 correctly? Remove keywords from old, and don't use such 'bad' version schemes in the future. The '20080406' version should have been something like 4_pre20080406 so that there's a natural ordering (3.9 -> 4_pre -> 4 / 5). Too late to fix it now ...
(In reply to Patrick Lauer from comment #13) > > (In reply to Paul B. Henson from comment #11) > > > Hmm, portage considers the current version "newer" than this new version, > > > how should that be handled? > > @QA: How would we perform this version bump from openntpd-20080406-r9 to > > openntpd-5.7p1 correctly? > > Remove keywords from old, and don't use such 'bad' version schemes in the > future. The '20080406' version should have been something like 4_pre20080406 > so that there's a natural ordering (3.9 -> 4_pre -> 4 / 5). Too late to fix > it now ... Since the old is stable, I think you could rename it to 4_pre... or alike first.
*openntpd-5.7_p1 (12 Jan 2015) 12 Jan 2015; Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> +files/openntpd-5.7_p1-driftpath.patch, +files/openntpd-5.7_p1-gentoopool.patch, +files/openntpd-5.7_p1-runpath.patch, +files/openntpd-5.7_p1-signal.patch, +files/openntpd-5.7_p1-warn-s-failure.patch, +openntpd-5.7_p1.ebuild: version bump (bug #536032) 12 Jan 2015; Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> -openntpd-20080406-r9.ebuild, openntpd-4.0_pre20080406.ebuild: move stable keywords from 20080406-r9 to 4.0_pre20080406 in preparation of version bump to 5.7_p1 (bug #536032) *openntpd-4.0_pre20080406 (12 Jan 2015) 12 Jan 2015; Christoph Junghans <ottxor@gentoo.org> +openntpd-4.0_pre20080406.ebuild: copy 20080406-r9 version to 4.0_pre20080406 to prepare version bump to 5.7_p1 (bug #536032)
