On 30/04/2008 at 13:12 +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Then ntpdate is blocking the ntp port, and ntpd has to wait for it. The new > package version does it properly; older versions were somewhat broken in this > respect. You could perhaps follow along and verify this if you put set -x > in /etc/network/if-up.d/nptdate.
blocking the ntp port??? As far as I can see, both /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate and /etc/init.d/ntp establish a lock on /var/lock/ntpdate. The second script to be run in my case is /etc/init.d/ntp and it keeps waiting on lockfile-create /var/lock/ntpdate. I can’t see anything related to ntp port. But, please, bear in mind that I’ve never used those locks and I could very well be mistaken). > But really the best solution is to uninstall ntpdate, because it is > useless in this setup. It’s not totally useless imho, I have a laptop that sometimes loses the hardware clock, ntpd doesn’t correct the time if there’s too much drift between the local clock and the server’s (here, ntpdate comes handy). I don’t see why those two packages should lock each other. ntpdate doesn’t keep running in the background with a socket open on ntp port or anything, ntp does do it. But as far as I can tell, the only problem related to that would be ntpdate trying to open a socket to connect to the server and beeing unable to do so because ntp has it, in that case ntpdate would simply fail). Anyway, if there’s really a conflict that I can’t see between those two packages, I think debian packaging system should reflect it. Thanks! -- Kiko Private mail is preferred encrypted: http://www.pirispons.net/pgpkey.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]