Ntpd config file support

[Laszlo Papp]

On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 10:03 PM, Laurent Bercot
<ska-dietlibc at skarnet.org> wrote:
> On 18/03/2014 21:28, Laszlo Papp wrote:
>
>> Exactly the opposite. You really missed the point of this thread. The
>> whole point about configuration file is to unify it, for me at least.
>
>
>  But what makes you think a configuration file would unify the way
> distributions run busybox ntpd more than the current command-line
> arguments do ? It would certainly cater to your use case, and certainly
> not to others.

Honestly, why do you think the ntpd provides configuration file or
many other softwares? Please think about it.

>  Again: packagers will repackage - right or wrong, that's what they do -
> and not give a flying duck about your dream of unified ntpd scripts.
> All Busybox can do is provide sensible interfaces and do its job of
> being small, and all you can do is use it and work with it in the way
> you like best.

That is incorrect, unfortunately. No one really modifies anything
about the ntpd implementation or any programs having standard configs.
That is the whole point for them.

Last, not least, I am quite confused what "small" you are speaking of.
In fact, people suggested compilation time option. This, in no way,
would increase the binary size for people who do not want it.