9 Jul
2011
9 Jul
'11
9:04 p.m.
On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 8:47 PM, Baptiste <zerstorer@free.fr> wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 08:15:06PM +0200, Seblu wrote: >> On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 6:59 PM, Bartek Piotrowski <barthalion@gmail.com> wrote: >> > 2011/7/9 Seblu <seblu@seblu.net>: >> >> Beginning of the sentence is in english? >> > >> > Ex Falso[1] in AUR. >> > >> > [1] http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=19030 >> > >> >> I wanted to adopt ntpdate to update it, but i'm believe package which >> have strict equivalent in official repo should not stay in AUR. >> Maybe a TU can englighten me? This package should be removed or updated? > > As far as I can tell, it doesn't look to be the exact same package as > the one in [extra]. > > The [extra] package includes the ntp daemon, while this one only > bundles the ntpdate program. This doesn't give more features. Arch doesn't start (like some others distro) daemons automatically after install, so there is only size of package difference. > Yet, the overhead is not huge (the 'ntp' package takes 1.59 MB while > 'ntpdate' from AUR takes 0.18 MB), and imho, it isn't worth the time > compiling the AUR package. To install it, we need to download package tarball + ntp tarball (1,2K + 4,2 M). > The best solution might be to keep ntpdate-dev and delete ntpdate from > the AUR. I agree. -- Sébastien Luttringer www.seblu.net