Debian Bug report logs - #731594
Please make openntpd package priority standard

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 11:25:16 +0100

Package: debian-installer
Severity: normal
Tags: d-i

Hello,

I think that a modern OS should take care of time synchronisation without
requiring user intervention. As far as I can see, Debian doesn't install any
kind of NTP client by default. (I'd guess that it falls back behind Mac and
Windows in this regard. Even my mobile phone synchronises time automatically.)

Thus, I'd suggest to install as part of the base system an NTP package
(eg. ntp, openntpd, chrony) configured to act as client only.

This issue has already been discussed nine years ago, however I believe that
user's expectations have changed through the passage of time and thus a fresh
look at the topic may be warranted.

http://bugs.debian.org/397649

Best,
Thiemo Nagel

Message #10 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>

To: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>, 731594@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 13:24:18 +0000

reassign 731594 ntpdate
retitle 731594 Please make ntpdate package priority standard
thanks

On 7 December 2013 10:25, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Package: debian-installer
> Severity: normal
> Tags: d-i
>
> Hello,
>
> I think that a modern OS should take care of time synchronisation without
> requiring user intervention. As far as I can see, Debian doesn't install any
> kind of NTP client by default. (I'd guess that it falls back behind Mac and
> Windows in this regard. Even my mobile phone synchronises time automatically.)
>
> Thus, I'd suggest to install as part of the base system an NTP package
> (eg. ntp, openntpd, chrony) configured to act as client only.
>
> This issue has already been discussed nine years ago, however I believe that
> user's expectations have changed through the passage of time and thus a fresh
> look at the topic may be warranted.
>
> http://bugs.debian.org/397649
>

I fully agree that ntp client should be installed by default. Checking
dependencies of the available candidates (such that we can see what
other packages they pull into standard set):
* ntp - libopts25 (optional)
* ntpdate - all good
* openntpd - all good
* chrony - timelimit (optional)

Nothing too scary.

The other concern raised was people on intermittent and metered
connections (3G / dial-up), who may not want to have a daemon running
that can't do anything, nor a daemon that would establish unwanted
internet connections. To this extend ntpdate is the best package, as
it is only executed upon network configuration without a long running
daemon, nor periodic cron job.

To resolve this bug report one of the above packages should become
priority standard. From d-i point of view, any would do =)

I recommend for ntpdate to become such one. Therefore I am reassigning
this bug to package "ntpdate" for its maintainer to consider this
change.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.

Message #19 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 16:09:54 +0100

Hi Dmitrijs,

thank you for your reply! The proposed solution sounds good, except
for servers which rarely (re)configure their network. Is there another
option that would work for servers, too?

Best,
Thiemo

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> reassign 731594 ntpdate
> retitle 731594 Please make ntpdate package priority standard
> thanks
>
> On 7 December 2013 10:25, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Package: debian-installer
>> Severity: normal
>> Tags: d-i
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think that a modern OS should take care of time synchronisation without
>> requiring user intervention. As far as I can see, Debian doesn't install any
>> kind of NTP client by default. (I'd guess that it falls back behind Mac and
>> Windows in this regard. Even my mobile phone synchronises time automatically.)
>>
>> Thus, I'd suggest to install as part of the base system an NTP package
>> (eg. ntp, openntpd, chrony) configured to act as client only.
>>
>> This issue has already been discussed nine years ago, however I believe that
>> user's expectations have changed through the passage of time and thus a fresh
>> look at the topic may be warranted.
>>
>> http://bugs.debian.org/397649
>>
>
> I fully agree that ntp client should be installed by default. Checking
> dependencies of the available candidates (such that we can see what
> other packages they pull into standard set):
> * ntp - libopts25 (optional)
> * ntpdate - all good
> * openntpd - all good
> * chrony - timelimit (optional)
>
> Nothing too scary.
>
> The other concern raised was people on intermittent and metered
> connections (3G / dial-up), who may not want to have a daemon running
> that can't do anything, nor a daemon that would establish unwanted
> internet connections. To this extend ntpdate is the best package, as
> it is only executed upon network configuration without a long running
> daemon, nor periodic cron job.
>
> To resolve this bug report one of the above packages should become
> priority standard. From d-i point of view, any would do =)
>
> I recommend for ntpdate to become such one. Therefore I am reassigning
> this bug to package "ntpdate" for its maintainer to consider this
> change.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dmitrijs.

Message #24 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>

To: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 16:10:26 +0000

On 7 December 2013 15:09, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Dmitrijs,
>
> thank you for your reply! The proposed solution sounds good, except
> for servers which rarely (re)configure their network. Is there another
> option that would work for servers, too?
>

Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
configured.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.



> Best,
> Thiemo
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
>> reassign 731594 ntpdate
>> retitle 731594 Please make ntpdate package priority standard
>> thanks
>>
>> On 7 December 2013 10:25, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Package: debian-installer
>>> Severity: normal
>>> Tags: d-i
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I think that a modern OS should take care of time synchronisation without
>>> requiring user intervention. As far as I can see, Debian doesn't install any
>>> kind of NTP client by default. (I'd guess that it falls back behind Mac and
>>> Windows in this regard. Even my mobile phone synchronises time automatically.)
>>>
>>> Thus, I'd suggest to install as part of the base system an NTP package
>>> (eg. ntp, openntpd, chrony) configured to act as client only.
>>>
>>> This issue has already been discussed nine years ago, however I believe that
>>> user's expectations have changed through the passage of time and thus a fresh
>>> look at the topic may be warranted.
>>>
>>> http://bugs.debian.org/397649
>>>
>>
>> I fully agree that ntp client should be installed by default. Checking
>> dependencies of the available candidates (such that we can see what
>> other packages they pull into standard set):
>> * ntp - libopts25 (optional)
>> * ntpdate - all good
>> * openntpd - all good
>> * chrony - timelimit (optional)
>>
>> Nothing too scary.
>>
>> The other concern raised was people on intermittent and metered
>> connections (3G / dial-up), who may not want to have a daemon running
>> that can't do anything, nor a daemon that would establish unwanted
>> internet connections. To this extend ntpdate is the best package, as
>> it is only executed upon network configuration without a long running
>> daemon, nor periodic cron job.
>>
>> To resolve this bug report one of the above packages should become
>> priority standard. From d-i point of view, any would do =)
>>
>> I recommend for ntpdate to become such one. Therefore I am reassigning
>> this bug to package "ntpdate" for its maintainer to consider this
>> change.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dmitrijs.

Message #29 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:12:08 +0100

Of course, they can. Yet, it would be nice to have a default that
works in all situations without user (or admin) intervention.

Best,
Thiemo

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
> On 7 December 2013 15:09, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Dmitrijs,
>>
>> thank you for your reply! The proposed solution sounds good, except
>> for servers which rarely (re)configure their network. Is there another
>> option that would work for servers, too?
>>
>
> Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
> to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
> configured.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dmitrijs.
>
>
>
>> Best,
>> Thiemo
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> wrote:
>>> reassign 731594 ntpdate
>>> retitle 731594 Please make ntpdate package priority standard
>>> thanks
>>>
>>> On 7 December 2013 10:25, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Package: debian-installer
>>>> Severity: normal
>>>> Tags: d-i
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> I think that a modern OS should take care of time synchronisation without
>>>> requiring user intervention. As far as I can see, Debian doesn't install any
>>>> kind of NTP client by default. (I'd guess that it falls back behind Mac and
>>>> Windows in this regard. Even my mobile phone synchronises time automatically.)
>>>>
>>>> Thus, I'd suggest to install as part of the base system an NTP package
>>>> (eg. ntp, openntpd, chrony) configured to act as client only.
>>>>
>>>> This issue has already been discussed nine years ago, however I believe that
>>>> user's expectations have changed through the passage of time and thus a fresh
>>>> look at the topic may be warranted.
>>>>
>>>> http://bugs.debian.org/397649
>>>>
>>>
>>> I fully agree that ntp client should be installed by default. Checking
>>> dependencies of the available candidates (such that we can see what
>>> other packages they pull into standard set):
>>> * ntp - libopts25 (optional)
>>> * ntpdate - all good
>>> * openntpd - all good
>>> * chrony - timelimit (optional)
>>>
>>> Nothing too scary.
>>>
>>> The other concern raised was people on intermittent and metered
>>> connections (3G / dial-up), who may not want to have a daemon running
>>> that can't do anything, nor a daemon that would establish unwanted
>>> internet connections. To this extend ntpdate is the best package, as
>>> it is only executed upon network configuration without a long running
>>> daemon, nor periodic cron job.
>>>
>>> To resolve this bug report one of the above packages should become
>>> priority standard. From d-i point of view, any would do =)
>>>
>>> I recommend for ntpdate to become such one. Therefore I am reassigning
>>> this bug to package "ntpdate" for its maintainer to consider this
>>> change.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dmitrijs.

Message #34 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, debian-boot@lists.debian.org

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Processed: Re: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 17:56:00 +0100

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 01:27:16PM +0000, Debian Bug Tracking System wrote:
> > retitle 731594 Please make ntpdate package priority standard
> Bug #731594 [ntpdate] debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default
> Changed Bug title to 'Please make ntpdate package priority standard' from 'debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default'

ntpdate has always been indented to go away.  It does not make
sense to make it priority standard.

If you want to make something priority standard of the ntp package
it should be ntp itself.  But in that case I would wait for the
next major version (4.2.8) to be released which fixes a whole lot
of issues people would run in to.

The 4.2.8 version also contains a proper sntp client, which might
be something you want instead of the full ntp daemon.


Kurt

Message #39 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 07 Dec 2013 10:22:33 -0700

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> writes:

> Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
> to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
> configured.

FWIW, calling ntpdate from cron is a *horrible* idea.

Since I agree that having time sync be a default part of a Debian
installation would be a good idea, let me put a few thoughts down here
and articulate what I think we should do.

On a system like a server with at least one fixed-configuration network
interface, unless the hardware clock has completely failed, the initial
system time won't be grossly off, and just installing an ntp daemon is a
better plan.  Even if the hardware clock *has* failed, Debian's ntp
packaging uses the -g option to the daemon by default, so that once the
daemon has talked to enough peers/servers to know what time it is, it
will always slew the clock one time no matter how far off it is at
daemon launch. 

On a client system like a notebook that only has dynamic network
connectivity, and may not be on the net at all at boot, the best
strategy seem to be to rely on the hardware clock at boot and only worry
about network time sync when there's networking available.  For the past
couple years, I've been using the openntpd package on my notebook, which
has an if-up.d script that does a force-reload on each network interface
up event, and in practice I've been quite happy with the results.

I looked at chrony briefly several years ago and wasn't impressed, but
I'm peripherally aware that it has been worked on quite a bit since then
and probably deserves another look.  It claims to have been specifically
written to handle well the case of a system that's not always on the net.

Looking at the size of the packages, ntp is largest due to the inclusion
of drivers for various reference clocks, etc.  Chrony is also a very
large package, ntpdate is much larger than you'd expect, and openntpd is
quite small by comparison to either ntp or chrony.  Here are the Size:
and Installed-Size: values for each based on the current sid packages:

      ntp      559578  1226
      chrony   395400   743
      ntpdate   81930   227
      openntpd  64068   103

I care a lot about the size of our base install, and openntpd seems to
do everything I need just fine as far as I can tell.  So, without going
off to study chrony which I really don't know at all, if I were making
this decision, I'd be inclined to make openntpd standard, avoid ntpdate
entirely, and assume users who really want to run stratum-1 NTP servers
know how to install and optimally configure ntp.

Bdale

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Message #44 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Kurt Roeckx <kurt@roeckx.be>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>, 731594@bugs.debian.org

Cc: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

Subject: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#731594: Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 22:17:10 +0100

On Sat, Dec 07, 2013 at 10:22:33AM -0700, Bdale Garbee wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> writes:
> 
> > Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
> > to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
> > configured.
> 
> FWIW, calling ntpdate from cron is a *horrible* idea.

I would like to make it clear that we should *never* run something
that updates the time from cron.  That would have as effect that
all clients will query the time at about the same time causing a
massive overload of the ntp servers.  If you run that against the
ntp pool I believe that would be reason for having
*.debian.pool.ntp.org getting disabled.


Kurt

Message #49 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

To: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>

Cc: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 00:00:00 +0100

Hi Bdale,

thank you for your input! Using openntpd sounds very good. Who is the
person to make the decision?

Best,
Thiemo

On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote:
> Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> writes:
>
>> Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
>> to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
>> configured.
>
> FWIW, calling ntpdate from cron is a *horrible* idea.
>
> Since I agree that having time sync be a default part of a Debian
> installation would be a good idea, let me put a few thoughts down here
> and articulate what I think we should do.
>
> On a system like a server with at least one fixed-configuration network
> interface, unless the hardware clock has completely failed, the initial
> system time won't be grossly off, and just installing an ntp daemon is a
> better plan.  Even if the hardware clock *has* failed, Debian's ntp
> packaging uses the -g option to the daemon by default, so that once the
> daemon has talked to enough peers/servers to know what time it is, it
> will always slew the clock one time no matter how far off it is at
> daemon launch.
>
> On a client system like a notebook that only has dynamic network
> connectivity, and may not be on the net at all at boot, the best
> strategy seem to be to rely on the hardware clock at boot and only worry
> about network time sync when there's networking available.  For the past
> couple years, I've been using the openntpd package on my notebook, which
> has an if-up.d script that does a force-reload on each network interface
> up event, and in practice I've been quite happy with the results.
>
> I looked at chrony briefly several years ago and wasn't impressed, but
> I'm peripherally aware that it has been worked on quite a bit since then
> and probably deserves another look.  It claims to have been specifically
> written to handle well the case of a system that's not always on the net.
>
> Looking at the size of the packages, ntp is largest due to the inclusion
> of drivers for various reference clocks, etc.  Chrony is also a very
> large package, ntpdate is much larger than you'd expect, and openntpd is
> quite small by comparison to either ntp or chrony.  Here are the Size:
> and Installed-Size: values for each based on the current sid packages:
>
>       ntp      559578 1226
>       chrony   395400   743
>       ntpdate   81930   227
>       openntpd  64068   103
>
> I care a lot about the size of our base install, and openntpd seems to
> do everything I need just fine as far as I can tell.  So, without going
> off to study chrony which I really don't know at all, if I were making
> this decision, I'd be inclined to make openntpd standard, avoid ntpdate
> entirely, and assume users who really want to run stratum-1 NTP servers
> know how to install and optimally configure ntp.
>
> Bdale

Message #54 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>

To: Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2013 23:14:03 +0000

reassign 731594 openntpd
retitle 731594 Please make openntpd package priority standard
thanks

On 7 December 2013 23:00, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Bdale,
>
> thank you for your input! Using openntpd sounds very good. Who is the
> person to make the decision?
>

reassigning to openntpd package.

Regards,

dmitrijs.

> Best,
> Thiemo
>
> On Sat, Dec 7, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote:
>> Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org> writes:
>>
>>> Servers that rarely (re)configure network or boot, can also setup cron
>>> to call to ntpdate or install an NTP client daemon when they are first
>>> configured.
>>
>> FWIW, calling ntpdate from cron is a *horrible* idea.
>>
>> Since I agree that having time sync be a default part of a Debian
>> installation would be a good idea, let me put a few thoughts down here
>> and articulate what I think we should do.
>>
>> On a system like a server with at least one fixed-configuration network
>> interface, unless the hardware clock has completely failed, the initial
>> system time won't be grossly off, and just installing an ntp daemon is a
>> better plan.  Even if the hardware clock *has* failed, Debian's ntp
>> packaging uses the -g option to the daemon by default, so that once the
>> daemon has talked to enough peers/servers to know what time it is, it
>> will always slew the clock one time no matter how far off it is at
>> daemon launch.
>>
>> On a client system like a notebook that only has dynamic network
>> connectivity, and may not be on the net at all at boot, the best
>> strategy seem to be to rely on the hardware clock at boot and only worry
>> about network time sync when there's networking available.  For the past
>> couple years, I've been using the openntpd package on my notebook, which
>> has an if-up.d script that does a force-reload on each network interface
>> up event, and in practice I've been quite happy with the results.
>>
>> I looked at chrony briefly several years ago and wasn't impressed, but
>> I'm peripherally aware that it has been worked on quite a bit since then
>> and probably deserves another look.  It claims to have been specifically
>> written to handle well the case of a system that's not always on the net.
>>
>> Looking at the size of the packages, ntp is largest due to the inclusion
>> of drivers for various reference clocks, etc.  Chrony is also a very
>> large package, ntpdate is much larger than you'd expect, and openntpd is
>> quite small by comparison to either ntp or chrony.  Here are the Size:
>> and Installed-Size: values for each based on the current sid packages:
>>
>>       ntp      559578 1226
>>       chrony   395400   743
>>       ntpdate   81930   227
>>       openntpd  64068   103
>>
>> I care a lot about the size of our base install, and openntpd seems to
>> do everything I need just fine as far as I can tell.  So, without going
>> off to study chrony which I really don't know at all, if I were making
>> this decision, I'd be inclined to make openntpd standard, avoid ntpdate
>> entirely, and assume users who really want to run stratum-1 NTP servers
>> know how to install and optimally configure ntp.
>>
>> Bdale

Message #63 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Dererk <dererk@debian.org>

To: Dmitrijs Ledkovs <xnox@debian.org>, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com>

Cc: 731594@bugs.debian.org, control@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Re: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#731594: debian-installer: time synchronisation should be installed by default

Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2013 21:05:12 -0300

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

On 07/12/13 20:14, Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote:
> reassign 731594 openntpd
> retitle 731594 Please make openntpd package priority standard
> thanks
>
> On 7 December 2013 23:00, Thiemo Nagel <thiemo.nagel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Bdale,
>>
>> thank you for your input! Using openntpd sounds very good. Who is the
>> person to make the decision?
>>
> reassigning to openntpd package.
Hi.

From the openntpd perspective, I think the PROs described are fair,
openntpd is extremely small on both, package size and memory footprint
(~2mb), and almost no dependences from base system.
On a personal note, without my openntpd maintainer hat on, I'm extremely
happy with it, I run it on every single server I've root on, 4 of them
members of pool.ntp.org.
It does what is says it does (now w/patches applied), it's simple but
powerful (It can act as servers as well commenting out a single line),
and it's almost imperceptible (except in the cases you have a flapping
networking connection, like a wireless network).
Remember openntpd is NOT an ISC's ntp replacement, it does not provide
all the functionalities the second does, but I think It does provide all
the required ones with a scope of a ntpdate replacement.

On the other hand, and I'm afraid this an extremely important downside
for openntpd, even though the OpenNTPd project is quite active, the
Portable branch, that is the openntpd software supposed to be used for
running on systems other than OpenBSD, is basically stalled on time.
I've tried to contact the branch responsible many many times with no
success.
 
More over, the current openntpd version present from Wheezy on are
running a set of patches that have been prepared back on 2008 by the
Portable Branch responsible (""upstream""), but never committed at
upstream software. This reflects the state of staleness upstream is.

I want to think I've tried to coordinate efforts with other relevant
OpenNTPd consumers (other distros) for requesting some assistance to the
OpenNTPd project, but I'm afraid that would be lying because I've not
find enough human power to achieve that.

I consider this thread is of much importance for the project, although
I'm afraid I might not be able to provide a fair judge on this as I
don't really know ISC's ntpd well enough to make a fair comparison.
Kurt, on the other hand, used to be maintainer of openntpd and he has
solid and deep knowledge on both ntp daemons.
I trust he would be able to provide a very fair technical advise for this.
 

Cheers,

Dererk

-- 
BOFH excuse #318:
Your EMAIL is now being delivered by the USPS.

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Message #68 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <731594@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: Re: Please make openntpd package priority standard

Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2014 11:11:09 +0300

Package: openntpd
Followup-For: Bug #731594

Is there any progress on this?  

Is there anything I can do to help?

Cheers!
Martin-Éric

-- System Information:
Debian Release: jessie/sid
  APT prefers testing
  APT policy: (1001, 'testing'), (1001, 'oldstable'), (101, 'stable')
Architecture: i386 (i686)

Kernel: Linux 3.14-1-686-pae (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fi_FI.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fi_FI.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

Versions of packages openntpd depends on:
ii  adduser      3.113+nmu3
ii  libc6        2.19-7
ii  libssl1.0.0  1.0.1h-3
ii  netbase      5.2

openntpd recommends no packages.

openntpd suggests no packages.

-- no debconf information

Message #73 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Martin-Éric Racine <martin-eric.racine@iki.fi>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <731594@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: openntpd: upstream is looking for a maintainer for the portable branch

Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 23:16:12 +0300

Package: openntpd
Followup-For: Bug #731594

Dererk pointed out in a previous comment to this bug report that the portable
branch is obsolete and that its maintainer hasn't responded. Here's some good
news: the project's site mentions that they in fact need a new maintainer for
the portable branch: http://www.openntpd.org

At this point, if we really mean to make OpenNTPD the standard NTP daemon at
Debian, we have a window of opportunity we can seize.

I'm the entirely wrong person to do this, though, seeing as my coding skills
are sketchy at best and how I've been meaning to spend less time on Debian as
other aspects of my life have taken on a much higher priority.

Does anybody else wanna contact Henning Brauer to see how we can hijack this?

Martin-Éric

Message #78 received at 731594@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Nicolas Braud-Santoni <nicolas@braud-santoni.eu>

To: 731594@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Re: Please make openntpd package priority standard

Date: Tue, 17 May 2016 20:20:19 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi,

It has been 21 months now, and the portable branch upstream seem to be
  again actively maintained.  Is it time to revisit this bug?


Regarding packaging in Debian, I use openntpd on most of my systems,
  and would be very glad to help maintain the package.


Best,

  nicoo

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.