Bounding the target platforms

[Eric S. Raymond]

Mark: heads up!  Policy issue.

Gary E. Miller <gem at rellim.com>:
> > No, it's still here, if you mean hardpps amd RFC1589 support.  Though
> > I didn't know that until today - it's amost completely undocumented,
> > you have notice the hint dropped by the meaning of flag3 and then read
> > source code to get any idea what's going on.
> 
> Any reason not to kill it off?  With the move to tickless Linux I can't
> see the kernel caring about a 22 year old interface that has no added
> value, is rarely used and incompatible with the future.

I guess that depends on how ubiquitous we think the RFC2783 API has become.

If we were only worrying about Linux I'd say ditch it.  But we have other
platfprms to care about - and, curiously, I don't find we have a bounded
list of them.

So let's drop back to two questions:

1. What platforms do we care about supporting in client mode (doesn't need PPS)?

2. What platforms do we care about supporting refclocks on?
-- 
		<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a>

Please consider contributing to my Patreon page at https://www.patreon.com/esr
so I can keep the invisible wheels of the Internet turning. Give generously -
the civilization you save might be your own.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ntpsec.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170226/50c4e964/attachment.bin>