On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 01:42 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
On 22.7.2020 23:40, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 15:46 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 1:11 PM Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 11:46 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
Is is possible there's a significant minority who have workflows that explicitly depend on chrony? If it's not possible, then I'd support the working group just making the substitution for Workstation 33.
We literally just got done rewriting https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Testcase_base_service_manipulation (and the automated version of that test) to use chronyd on the basis that it's a reliable service that we can rely on to exist in all tested editions :/
Find and replace? :D
@core services dnf-makecache.timer auditd.service plymouth-start.service
chrony isn't in either @core or @standard groups. It's in server-product and workstation-product (anaconda-tools and system-tools). But it may not be in Cloud, IoT, or CoreOS. I'm not sure.
It's in everything we run the test on. We checked.
You don't get any more reliable service that exist in all tested editions current and in the future other than those that come with the system management framework as in you don't have to worry about specific component being installed which might be subjected removal or being broken due to some change which would break all the test right.
So what made QA choose Chrony in the first place?
"it's a reliable service that we can rely on to exist in all tested editions". At least, that was the best candidate we could come up with. We used to use sshd, but that became a problem because some tested image (I forget which) no longer includes it.
I didn't suggest anything internal to systemd because a) it's at least plausible there could be some kind of incompatibility issue which was hidden on systemd-internal services, and b) the set of systemd services we actually include and enable out of the box isn't particularly consistent or reliable.