Raul Miller wrote:
> Briefly, this command line:
> f=/tmp/fifo; rm -f $f; mkfifo $f; ( sleep 100 <$f 0>$f &); sleep 2; echo >$f
> will kill your interactive shell
>
> I'm a bit surprised to find this, um.. undocumented feature in three
> shells of supposedly different lineage. I should note that
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
> I think we need a way to install a package without automatically having its
> server part configured and running. This is needed in many packages (e.g.:
> ssh).
I agree. This is also an issue when you do something like
dpkg --root=/mnt -i foo.deb -- when you do that,
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I've never had ntpdate ever work while xntpd is running, with the set
> > options it never actually changes the time, I forget if it's a silent
> > fail or if it gives some error.
Harumph.
Personally, I've never seen ntpdate hang, I've only deferred
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've never had ntpdate ever work while xntpd is running, with the set
> options it never actually changes the time, I forget if it's a silent
> fail or if it gives some error.
Hmm.. and the system where I was running ntpdate in the background
(after I t
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Was the system clock ever warped more than 1024 seconds under these
> circumstances? If so, I think that it would cause xntpd to exit, but I
> have not actually tried it.
Hmm... circumstancial evidence says that yes, this kills xntpd.
I guess the right t
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You can't background ntpdate, both ntpdate and xntpd can not run at the
> > same time, if you load one then the other will fail.
>
> Hm... then I guess it should be done the other way around.
>
> ntpdate wi
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
: Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:> Have you actually tried this and found something different?
: I've run ntpdate numerous times with xntp already running.
Hmm. I didn't think that would work. Learn something new every day!
Was the system clo
Jason Gunthorpe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You can't background ntpdate, both ntpdate and xntpd can not run at the
> same time, if you load one then the other will fail.
Hm... then I guess it should be done the other way around.
ntpdate will run with xntpd running, I've done this numerous times
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Raul Miller wrote:
> [Note that I've tossed the timeout, but to prevent any potential
> boot-hang problems have backgrounded the sction. According to
You can't background ntpdate, both ntpdate and xntpd can not run at the
same time, if you load one then the other will fail
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 12:38:00PM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Have you actually tried this and found something different?
>
> I've run ntpdate numerous times with xntp already running.
>
> > I've actually had several folks request that I break ntpdate
Bdale Garbee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you actually tried this and found something different?
I've run ntpdate numerous times with xntp already running.
> I've actually had several folks request that I break ntpdate out into a
> separate package, so that they could install just it and co
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 s
On Sun, Jun 14, 1998 at 09:08:08AM -0400, Raul Miller wrote:
> Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There are a number of aspects of the existing init script that are not
> > policy-compliant. Within this mail is a modified version that is. (Yes, I
> > have tested it.)
>
> A question/
Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> There are a number of aspects of the existing init script that are not
> policy-compliant. Within this mail is a modified version that is. (Yes, I
> have tested it.)
A question/comment, though:
> TIMEHOST1=ntp2.usno.navy.mil
> TIMEHOST2=tick.usno.na
[I don't have the bug number at hand, so please forward this to the bug
tracking system.]
On Sun, 14 Jun 1998, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Package: xntp3
> Version: 5.91-8
> Severity: important
>
> There are a number of aspects of the existing init script that are not
> policy-compliant. Within
15 matches
Mail list logo
