From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Apr 29 13:26:57 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id NAA08158 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:26:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.cdrom.com [204.216.27.21]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id NAA08153 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:26:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mixcom.mixcom.com (mixcom.mixcom.com [198.137.186.100]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id NAA10822 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 13:26:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mixcom.mixcom.com (8.6.12/2.2) id PAA15181; Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:27:50 -0500 Received: from p75.mixcom.com(198.137.186.25) by mixcom.mixcom.com via smap (V1.3) id sma015156; Tue Apr 29 15:27:45 1997 Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970429152852.00b0f7cc@mixcom.com> X-Sender: sysop@mixcom.com X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0 (32) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 1997 15:28:53 -0500 To: Harry Mantakos From: "Jeffrey J. Mountin" Subject: Re: Syslog bug? (1 solved) Cc: hackers@freebsd.com, mrm@Mole.ORG Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk At 07:52 PM 4/27/97 -0400, Harry Mantakos wrote: >You're probably running smap chrooted, and it isn't finding >/etc/localtime in its chrooted directory (typically /var/spool/smap). > >smapd is generally not run chrooted. It parses the 'directory' >parameter from the netperm-table file, but just chdir()s to that >directory rather than chroot()ing to it. Ding! Duh. Momentary lapse there, as I had to create an etc dir and copy resolv.conf to the chroot'd dir. At the minimum I need to have ./etc/localtime and ./usr/share/zoneinfo and the latter needed "posixrules", "zone.tab", and the "America" subdir or are just the first 2 required (didn't try... yet :). Now of course my math skills will deteriorate. ;) On the curious side I wonder if any date related calls access the files in /usr/share/zoneinfo *every* time a program makes a call or is this info cached? The way the code looks it is not. This means that a small amount of work (disk IO) is done for each program and each call, if there are several, and could be considered inefficient, especially when one considers how many times syslog() is used. Or is there a reason for this? ------------------------------------------- Jeff Mountin - System/Network Administrator jeff@mixcom.net MIX Communications Serving the Internet since 1990