Re: xntp3: init script is not very policy-compliant
In article <[🔎] 19980614082816.B9290@purdue.edu> you wrote:
:> Any reason not to use
:> ntpdate -b -s `awk '/^[ ]*server/{print $2}'` &
:> ? (that's a tab and a space between the square brackets).
:> [Note that I've tossed the timeout, but to prevent any potential
:> boot-hang problems have backgrounded the sction.
I don't think backgrounding the ntpdate will work well in practice, because
ntpdate and xntpd can't be running at the same time. If you background it,
and then launch xntpd without waiting for ntpdate to finish, I'm pretty sure
you'll get a "socket already in use" kind of error. This is actually a
"logical" thing, not just a technical issue, since having more than one
process trying to understand and whack on the system clock at the same time
feels like it would be doomed to failure...
Have you actually tried this and found something different?
I've actually had several folks request that I break ntpdate out into a
separate package, so that they could install just it and configure some hosts
to run it against at boot without having the full xntpd installation around.
I have mixed feelings about this, but understand the motivations. Anyone else
care to comment?
With respect to the cron scripts, I haven't looked at them for a while. They
are essentially what was there when I took over the package. They do not,
with the package in its present form, generate *any* regualar email. I'm
actually not personally thrilled about the explicit stop and start in the
cron.weekly. If anyone cares to propose something different/better, I'll be
happy to look at doing this differently... if what's there is fine with
everyone, that's ok too.
Bdale
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: