* Peter Eisentraut
> Well, I don't know what Ubuntu has done or does, but the current
> behavior was requested in Debian bug reports. If we don't run ntpdate
> on ifup, when would we run it?
During boot, after the network is normally started, and before system
services are started. If there'
Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2006 15:57 schrieb Tore Anderson:
> This bug is about copying Ubuntu's current behaviour, which is to run
> ntpdate on every ifup. The text I initially replied to was from Ingo
Well, I don't know what Ubuntu has done or does, but the current behavior was
requested in
* Peter Eisentraut
> You are expected to read the README.Debian file of every package you
> install.
Right. You have way too much faith in our users, including me.
> I don't know what Ubuntu has to do with this.
You should try reading the whole bug report, then. I would expect you
to hav
Am Freitag, 15. Dezember 2006 14:29 schrieb Tore Anderson:
> Why would you expect me to read the documentation of the ntpdate
> program when it is a completely unrelated command, "ifup", that I am
> running?
You are expected to read the README.Debian file of every package you install.
> I a
Tore Anderson schrieb:
> * Peter Eisentraut
> > That said, the ntpdate default configuration is optimized for
> > a "desktop". On a "server" you would use ntpd anyway, so there is no
> > need for ntpdate. I think this is a reasonable compromise.
>
> It is more exusable to mimic their behavio
* Peter Eisentraut
> The ntpdate README.Debian says:
>
> ntpdate is run whenever a network interface is brought up. To adjust
> this behavior, the file /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate should be edited.
>
> That file in turn says:
>
> # ... Feel free to change this, especially if you regularly
> #
Tore Anderson wrote:
> I also have an objection to the if-up.d script per se, though, but
> this is not as strong. I simply do not expect things to happen to
> my clock when I fiddle around with my network interfaces.
The ntpdate README.Debian says:
ntpdate is run whenever a network interface
* Kurt Roeckx
> -b means always step, -B means slew, and you asked for -B before?
Ranked in order of preference (as defaults, at least):
1) No gratuitous clock adjustments whatsoever (no if-up.d script)
2) No gratuitous clock stepping whatsoever (use of -B)
3) No gratituous clock steppin
On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:41:12AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx
>
> > Can I suggest you run ntpd with the -x option in that case?
>
> I already do.
>
> > Both ntpdate and ntpd will by default slew the time if it's smaller
> > the < 128 ms, and step when it's bigger.
>
> I kno
* Kurt Roeckx
> Can I suggest you run ntpd with the -x option in that case?
I already do.
> Both ntpdate and ntpd will by default slew the time if it's smaller
> the < 128 ms, and step when it's bigger.
I know. Maybe I should have been clearer though, what I'm objecting
to is primarily th
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 12:32:52PM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Ingo Oeser
>
> > The proposed solution of using /etc/networking/if-up.d/ works
> > without any problem for most of your users. Actually unbuntu
> > "Dapper Drake" is just doing it this way and I never had any problems.
> > We fixed
Hi Tore,
Tore Anderson schrieb:
> * Ingo Oeser
>
> > The proposed solution of using /etc/networking/if-up.d/ works
> > without any problem for most of your users. Actually unbuntu
> > "Dapper Drake" is just doing it this way and I never had any problems.
> > We fixed it for our customers the same
* Ingo Oeser
> The proposed solution of using /etc/networking/if-up.d/ works
> without any problem for most of your users. Actually unbuntu
> "Dapper Drake" is just doing it this way and I never had any problems.
> We fixed it for our customers the same way.
This is scary. I just had a rather
Bdale wrote:
> It would be nice if ntpd could be poked somehow to go notice changes in
> the list of available interfaces and/or server/peer information without
> having to start over from scratch as happens with a full restart, but I
> don't know offhand if that's possible with the current code?
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 08:25 +0100, Vincent Lönngren wrote:
> Package: ntp
> Version: 1:4.2.0a+stable-8.1
> Followup-For: Bug #289267
>
> If ntpd was restarted when an interface is added, it would avoid
> problems with ntpd starting when there are no hosts available.
The problem with this plan is
Package: ntp
Version: 1:4.2.0a+stable-8.1
Followup-For: Bug #289267
If ntpd was restarted when an interface is added, it would avoid
problems with ntpd starting when there are no hosts available.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
APT prefers testing
APT policy: (500, 't
16 matches
Mail list logo
