svn commit: r187782 - in head: etc/rc.d share/man/man5

[Rong-en Fan]

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Giorgos Keramidas <keramida at freebsd.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:28:39 +0800, Rong-en Fan <grafan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Shouldn't we keep ntp running after the clock is adjusted?
>>>
>>> This is correct too.  The effect of `ntpd_sync_on_start' is supposed to
>>> be the same as if we run `ntpdate' before the real ntpd starts, so this
>>> option only applies to the first sync-once instance of ntpd.  The real
>>> ntpd starts later, and finds the clock pre-synced.
>>
>> Hmm... I think I'm confused. According to rc.d/ntpd, if ntpd_sync_on_start
>> is set to yes, it adds '-q -g' to rc_flags. By doing so, ntpd start makes
>> ntpd exists immediately after the first sync. Then, who is responsible
>> to start the "real ntpd" you said above?
>
> Oops, testing with ntpd_sync_on_start again I think I broke rc.d/ntpd.
>
> I thought precmd was run in _addition_ to the start rc command, but it
> only runs before it and affects the flags of start too.  I think I'll
> back out the change until we the sync on start for real.
>
> The folowing seems to work much better, but it shows a duplicate message
> about `Starting ntpd.' so I have reverted the broken change until I've
> worked through the patch a bit more:

Hmm... I think your  patch here is already good enough. As for the
duplicate message, it is unavoidable unless we change rc.subr
(like adding a rc_silent).

Regards,
Rong-En Fan