syslogd fails to start after dist-upgrade(sarge)
When I was recently restarting my system, I notice a strange message
after init went to level 2. The message flew past and so I went to
/var/log to find my boot messages. They weren't their since I didn't
have bootlogd installed. (I upgraded to sarge last week) While I was in
/var/log, I took the opportunity to take a look at some of my logs and
they weren't there! Let me qualify that, nothing had been logged since
Jan 31. (the day I upgraded) I rebooted, checked /var/log/boot, and
found that syslogd was not starting due to an error. (see below) I
googled the error and fixed the problem by added a syslog entry to
/etc/services.
Why does syslogd need a services entry if logging is being done locally?
(Does it use lo?)
Is the syslog service entry not needed for the 1.4.1-10(woody) or was my
services file messed up during the upgrade? (I have no entries below
port 518 at the beginning of the file. I thought that there were
additional entries before I upgraded but I am unsure) How would I go
about fixing this file if it is fouled up?
After I started up bootlogd, syslog's "--Mark--" started printing to my
console. I know these messages are normal but I have never seen them on
my console. These messages stopped when I fixed syslogd.
Thanks for your comments
Colin
#### error report #####
# manual restart
colin@spanky~/$invoke-rc.d sysklogd restart
Restarted system log daemon: syslogd
syslogd exiting on signal 15
syslogd: network logging disabled (syslogd/udp service unknown)
syslogd: See syslogd(8) for details of whether or not to enable
it. Operation is not permitted
# relevant entries from /var/log/boot
Sun Feb 6 04:02:44 2005: Starting system log daemon:
syslogd\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000
syslogd: network logging disabled (syslog/udp service unknown).
Sun Feb 6 04:02:44 2005:
\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000\000 syslogd:
see syslogd(8) for details
of whether and now to enable it.: Operation not permitted
Sun Feb 6 04:02:44 2005: .
Reply to: