BLU Discuss list archive
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Discuss] new ssh error
- Subject: [Discuss] new ssh error
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2024 13:41:06 -0700
- In-reply-to: <20240702162427.1f083eb5.Richard.Pieri@gmail.com>
- References: <bb51baf8-2ab3-4320-8f6e-3f75541ada10@borg.org> <20240702162427.1f083eb5.Richard.Pieri@gmail.com>
On 7/2/24 13:24, Rich Pieri wrote: > TL;DR: these are notices, not errors. > > socket units are, well, socket units. They're systemd's version of > (x)inetd.conf. Yes, I looked at "ssh.socket" is and indeed it did look very inetd-like. Which is what worried me! If sshd isn't going to start until some ssh.socket something tells it to, and if that is disabled? Looking back through my notes I see *lots* of times I recorded that I upgraded openssh-server, yet I don't ever before remember seeing a "notice" that looked so unnervingly error-like. The fact that this is the first time openssh-server has had an upgrade since my Debian 11 -> 12 upgrade might be its cause, but that doesn't make it an explanation. > A static unit is a unit that lacks an install section. This is not a > bug: many units don't need to auto-start at boot time. They are > triggered by other events. If some inetd-like mechanism isn't going to start sshd, and there isn't a "static unit" to "auto-start" to do it either, what a frightening pair of "notices". -kb
- References:
- [Discuss] new ssh error
- From: kentborg at borg.org (Kent Borg)
- [Discuss] new ssh error
- From: richard.pieri at gmail.com (Rich Pieri)
- [Discuss] new ssh error
- Prev by Date: [Discuss] new ssh error
- Next by Date: [Discuss] Domain Registrar (and DNS) Recommendations?
- Previous by thread: [Discuss] new ssh error
- Next by thread: [Discuss] Domain Registrar (and DNS) Recommendations?
- Index(es):