Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
On Sep 22, 2006, at 4:18 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Am Freitag, 22. September 2006 04:25 schrieb Rick Thomas: But that information is not available in the if-up script. There are ways to find it out. If you like, I'll do up and test a sample. Please. Will do. I hope to get back to you in a couple of days(*). If so, would it be desirable to have them officially conflict? No. Forgive me my ignorance. I'm not an expert on the details of the apt dependency process. Can you educate me as to why it's not a good idea? Well, they don't actually conflict. They are just usually not used together. In particular, considering that in sarge, they usually *are* used together, it would probably upset quite a few people if we turned this around during the upgrade. If may make sense to drop the -u option from the default ntpdate options, so ntpdate doesn't run when ntpd is running. Do you want to try that out? (see /etc/default/ntpdate) Happy to. Once again, give me a day or so to experiment. (*) The main server for our house fried a disk this morning. I'm still dealing with the details that remain after getting it back in working order with a new disk. So it may take me a bit of time to get to do the experiments. But I *will* do it. I noticed that the new ntp/ntpdate packages made it into etch yesterday. That will make the experiments a bit easier. I don't normally run sid systems, which is why looking at the ntp* packages in sid didn't occur to me first think. Enjoy! Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
Am Freitag, 22. September 2006 04:25 schrieb Rick Thomas: But that information is not available in the if-up script. There are ways to find it out. If you like, I'll do up and test a sample. Please. If so, would it be desirable to have them officially conflict? No. Forgive me my ignorance. I'm not an expert on the details of the apt dependency process. Can you educate me as to why it's not a good idea? Well, they don't actually conflict. They are just usually not used together. In particular, considering that in sarge, they usually *are* used together, it would probably upset quite a few people if we turned this around during the upgrade. If may make sense to drop the -u option from the default ntpdate options, so ntpdate doesn't run when ntpd is running. Do you want to try that out? (see /etc/default/ntpdate) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
Rick Thomas wrote: I was Poking around in /var/log/syslog recently. I noticed that there was no log entry for ntpdate. Investigating a little, I found that /etc/init.d/ntpdate (alias /etc/rcS.d/S51ntpdate) is called before syslogd gets started. The latest ntpdate package does not contain an init script. Please check with that package if you have ideas how to make the logging more accessible. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
On Sep 21, 2006, at 1:42 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Rick Thomas wrote: I was Poking around in /var/log/syslog recently. I noticed that there was no log entry for ntpdate. Investigating a little, I found that /etc/init.d/ntpdate (alias /etc/rcS.d/S51ntpdate) is called before syslogd gets started. The latest ntpdate package does not contain an init script. Please check with that package if you have ideas how to make the logging more accessible. Hmmm... what's the latest ntpdate package version? On my local test etch/powerpc system I just did aptitude install ntp ntpdate and it put in ntpdate version 1:4.2.2+dfsg.2-1, which included a /etc/init.d/ ntpdate and a symlink /etc/rcS.d/S51ntpdate pointing to it. What am I missing? Thanks! Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
Rick Thomas wrote: What am I missing? I'm tempted to say knowledge of the Debian development process, which would have hinted you to the fact that if you are running testing, a newer package version is possibly to be found in unstable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
On Sep 21, 2006, at 5:47 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Again, check the package in unstable. That's the direction. Thanks for the pointer. I've looked at the ntpdate_4.2.2+dfsg.2-2 stuff now, and I have a couple of comments on that. The first is just an extension of this original bug-report: It does not make sense to use the -s option with ntpdate before syslogd has been started. The if-up.d stuff will most commonly be run during system initialization. The order of things in /etc/rcS.d is such that the network initialization will occur before starting syslogd (as it must, if syslog is redirected to another host). But on the other hand, it does make sense to use the -s option if ntpdate is being called after syslogd is started -- as, for example, when bringing up a new network interface without a reboot. So the logic in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate needs to be a bit like the login in the old /etc/init.d/ntpdate in that it knows whether it's being called as part of system initialization or on-the-fly after initialization. The second has to do with interaction of ntpdate with the ntp daemon: Maybe I've missed something, but i see no code that makes sure the ntp daemon is stopped when running ntpdate. My experience is that a running ntpd can get badly confused if you run ntpdate at the same time. Maybe the logic is that, now that ntpd can handle it's own clock startup, there's no need to have the two packages installed at the same time? If so, would it be desirable to have them officially conflict? Enjoy! Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
Rick Thomas wrote: So the logic in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate needs to be a bit like the login in the old /etc/init.d/ntpdate in that it knows whether it's being called as part of system initialization or on-the-fly after initialization. But that information is not available in the if-up script. Maybe the logic is that, now that ntpd can handle it's own clock startup, there's no need to have the two packages installed at the same time? Yes. If so, would it be desirable to have them officially conflict? No. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bug#388328: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#388328: boot logging fix for ntpdate in /etc/init.d
On Sep 21, 2006, at 9:00 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote: Rick Thomas wrote: So the logic in /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate needs to be a bit like the login in the old /etc/init.d/ntpdate in that it knows whether it's being called as part of system initialization or on-the-fly after initialization. But that information is not available in the if-up script. There are ways to find it out. If you like, I'll do up and test a sample. Maybe the logic is that, now that ntpd can handle it's own clock startup, there's no need to have the two packages installed at the same time? Yes. If so, would it be desirable to have them officially conflict? No. Forgive me my ignorance. I'm not an expert on the details of the apt dependency process. Can you educate me as to why it's not a good idea? Thanks, Rick -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
