Re: ntpd(8): Make -n quieter
On 2015 Aug 31 (Mon) at 14:28:11 -0400 (-0400), Michael Reed wrote: :On 08/31/15 07:36, Sebastian Benoit wrote: :> Michael Reed(m.r...@mykolab.com) on 2015.08.30 14:58:35 -0400: :>> Hi all, :>> :>> If ntpd is run with the -n flag, and /etc/ntpd.conf is parsed without :>> error, then "Configuration OK" is printed. I don't think this is :>> particularly useful, as both a lack of an error message and an exit :>> value of 0 already indicate success in this case. This seems to be the :>> case for most (many?) programs in the base system, such as doas(1). :> :> I like the message. Why is it a problem? :> :> /Benno :> : :It's admittedly not much of a problem, more just to follow the Unix :principle of saying nothing if there's nothing wrong. : :Regards, :Michael : In my mind, -n is explicitly asking for a configuration check, so explicitly telling me it's OK is a good thing. I prefer keeping the message. -- Jone's Motto: Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate.
Re: ntpd(8): Make -n quieter
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:21:03AM +0200, Peter Hessler wrote: > On 2015 Aug 31 (Mon) at 14:28:11 -0400 (-0400), Michael Reed wrote: > :On 08/31/15 07:36, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > :> Michael Reed(m.r...@mykolab.com) on 2015.08.30 14:58:35 -0400: > :>> Hi all, > :>> > :>> If ntpd is run with the -n flag, and /etc/ntpd.conf is parsed without > :>> error, then "Configuration OK" is printed. I don't think this is > :>> particularly useful, as both a lack of an error message and an exit > :>> value of 0 already indicate success in this case. This seems to be the > :>> case for most (many?) programs in the base system, such as doas(1). > :> > :> I like the message. Why is it a problem? > :> > :> /Benno > :> > : > :It's admittedly not much of a problem, more just to follow the Unix > :principle of saying nothing if there's nothing wrong. > : > :Regards, > :Michael > : > > In my mind, -n is explicitly asking for a configuration check, so > explicitly telling me it's OK is a good thing. sure, and if anyone wants less bother, just redirect the stderr like $ ntpd -n -f /etc/ntpd.conf 2>/dev/null ; echo $? 0 //gsoares
Re: ntpd(8): Make -n quieter
On 08/31/15 07:36, Sebastian Benoit wrote: > Michael Reed(m.r...@mykolab.com) on 2015.08.30 14:58:35 -0400: >> Hi all, >> >> If ntpd is run with the -n flag, and /etc/ntpd.conf is parsed without >> error, then "Configuration OK" is printed. I don't think this is >> particularly useful, as both a lack of an error message and an exit >> value of 0 already indicate success in this case. This seems to be the >> case for most (many?) programs in the base system, such as doas(1). > > I like the message. Why is it a problem? > > /Benno > It's admittedly not much of a problem, more just to follow the Unix principle of saying nothing if there's nothing wrong. Regards, Michael
ntpd(8): Make -n quieter
Hi all,
If ntpd is run with the -n flag, and /etc/ntpd.conf is parsed without
error, then Configuration OK is printed. I don't think this is
particularly useful, as both a lack of an error message and an exit
value of 0 already indicate success in this case. This seems to be the
case for most (many?) programs in the base system, such as doas(1).
Given that, I've removed the message
Regards,
Michael
Index: ntpd.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.94
diff -u -p -r1.94 ntpd.c
--- ntpd.c 18 Jul 2015 00:53:44 - 1.94
+++ ntpd.c 30 Aug 2015 18:42:06 -
@@ -159,7 +159,6 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
exit(1);
if (lconf.noaction) {
- fprintf(stderr, configuration OK\n);
exit(0);
}
Re: ntpd(8): Make -n quieter
On 08/30/15 14:58, Michael Reed wrote:
Hi all,
If ntpd is run with the -n flag, and /etc/ntpd.conf is parsed without
error, then Configuration OK is printed. I don't think this is
particularly useful, as both a lack of an error message and an exit
value of 0 already indicate success in this case. This seems to be the
case for most (many?) programs in the base system, such as doas(1).
Given that, I've removed the message
Regards,
Michael
Index: ntpd.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.94
diff -u -p -r1.94 ntpd.c
--- ntpd.c18 Jul 2015 00:53:44 - 1.94
+++ ntpd.c30 Aug 2015 18:42:06 -
@@ -159,7 +159,6 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
exit(1);
if (lconf.noaction) {
- fprintf(stderr, configuration OK\n);
exit(0);
}
In case this idea is accepted, here's an updated patch which does
the same for radiusd(8).
Index: src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.94
diff -u -p -r1.94 ntpd.c
--- src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c18 Jul 2015 00:53:44 - 1.94
+++ src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.c30 Aug 2015 21:57:53 -
@@ -159,7 +159,6 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
exit(1);
if (lconf.noaction) {
- fprintf(stderr, configuration OK\n);
exit(0);
}
Index: src/usr.sbin/radiusd/radiusd.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.sbin/radiusd/radiusd.c,v
retrieving revision 1.7
diff -u -p -r1.7 radiusd.c
--- src/usr.sbin/radiusd/radiusd.c 25 Aug 2015 01:12:59 - 1.7
+++ src/usr.sbin/radiusd/radiusd.c 30 Aug 2015 21:57:53 -
@@ -142,7 +142,6 @@ main(int argc, char *argv[])
if (parse_config(conffile, radiusd) != 0)
errx(EX_DATAERR, config error);
if (noaction) {
- fprintf(stderr, configuration OK\n);
exit(EXIT_SUCCESS);
}
