Ntpd config file support

[Ralf Friedl]

Laszlo Papp wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 9:17 PM, Ralf Friedl <Ralf.Friedl at online.de> wrote:
>> First, please either write your message below the quotes, or omit the
>> quotes. Especially don't quote parts that are not relevant to your message.
> I have no idea what point you are trying to make in here, sorry, nor
> do I care about the details 'cause the thread is already huge.
I should have guessed so.

>> If you want a configuration file
>> only for the time servers, this script will give you compatibility to the
>> ntp.org config file:
>> #!/bin/sh
>> NTPD_OPTIONS="..."
>> exec busybox ntpd $NTPD_OPTIONS $(sed -nre 's/^server *(.*)$/-p
>> \1/g'/etc/ntp.conf )
> I wonder if you are serious about this compared to the alternative way:
>
> /etc/busybox-ntpd/busybox-ntpd.conf
> foo=bar
>
> I guess you are trying to be smart in here without actually realizing
> significant difference between the two versions. I would not even
> bother to use busybox's ntpd if I had to write such ugly lines that is
> much more difficult to maintain than needed to.
I have no preference either way, and there are advantages and drawbacks 
to both approaches. I didn't say that there are no differences, so no 
need for you to imply that such a statement would have been wrong.
> Seriously though, you did not get the point of the thread, have you?
> *No one* has suggested to add initscripts to busybox. Please do
> re-read the thread. A short configuration file was just suggested. You
> are the first one indicating that initscript would need to be added.
Well, someone using your email adresse has posted an init script and 
asked for opinions about it. And no, I won't re-read the thread, it 
would be more waste of time.
Anybody who seriously considers making a distribution should be able to 
put such a script tugether within a few minutes without asking here for 
help.

>> Your script has a reaload case, where you send SIGHUP. What should ntpd do
>> on SIGHUP? Reload the config file? You said that reloading the config is not
>> necessary when it was about code size, so why send SIGHUP?
> Sorry, I cannot follow your logic in here. There is no any need for
> signal handling in order to load a config on start, really.
You can't follow, or you don't want to. It is about these lines in the 
init script someone proposed in your name:

+    reload)
+        echo -n "reloading $DESC: $NAME... "
+        killall -HUP $(basename ${DAEMON})


>> In one email in this thread someone suggested to make the configuration
>> hardcoded as the compile time configuration. I just hope that was meant as a
>> joke.
> Not at all, no. It was serious, at least from my side.
It thought it was from someone else, but if you are serious about it, 
just do it.
>>> I do not follow. The busybox user is the distro and maintainer in this
>>> case, really. The end user is not necessarily even aware of busybox,
>>> I would really appreciate more respect here towards end users.
>>> The end users have raised their opinion how they
>>> would like to see your software behaving.
>> I hope you realize that you are contradicting yourself here, within a few
>> lines of a single email.
> No, I do not. I still stick by my opinion in here I am afraid.
I will try to explain it slowly. In the first sentence you say the end 
user is not even aware of busybox. Then you say that end users have here 
raised their opinion about config files and ntpd.