Should ntpdate REQUIRE named?

[Brooks Davis]

On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:44:00PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> Question came up on -stable yesterday about a user who has ntp servers by 
> hostname in ntp.conf, and because of an unrelated ordering problem 
> ntp[date] started before named, so they failed. On all the systems I've 
> examined, named starts right after SERVERS, and ntpdate right after that. 
> While there are theoretically good reasons why one might want it the other 
> way around, I think for the vast majority of our users named should start 
> first.
> 
> Any comments, objections?

Overall, I'd say moving it would be fine.  One concern I might have is
if named's internal timers are confused by having the clock stepped.
I'm not enough of a bind expert to have any idea if that's an issue,
though I suspect there wouldn't be serious problems.

-- Brooks

-- 
Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE.
PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529  9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-rc/attachments/20060115/831deb32/attachment.bin