I've had issues before with the whole daemondo wrapper bit. Some things may need it, given how launchd has different expectations from other system's approaches to starting daemons, and some daemons may not have a sufficiently compliant behavior without daemondo as an intermediary. But when it's not actually needed, it's one more thing to go wrong. In the case of rsync as a daemon, it should be possible to write a LaunchDaemon plist file suitable for daemons that could be launched by inetd (on other systems) in nowait mode.
> On Oct 25, 2018, at 10:00, Kevin Layer <la...@franz.com> wrote: > > Rainer Müller wrote: > >>> On 2018-10-24 16:51, Kevin Layer wrote: >>>> When I installed rsync, I executed the command that was suggested by >>>> the port command. I forget what it was. >>> >>> Probably that was the usual 'sudo port load rsync'. > > That was it. > >>> >>>> After a reboot, every 30 seconds, I see this in /var/log/system.log: >>>> >>>> com.apple.xpc.launchd[1] (org.macports.rsyncd[1044]): Service exited with >>>> abnormal code: 2 >>> >>> That means the rsyncd process exited with an error. You need to look at >>> the error messages to find out why. >>> >>> Try this command to capture the output: >>> sudo launchctl debug system/org.macports.rsync --stdout --stderr >>> >>> Rainer > > Found this in the console: > > 2018-10-25 06:55:16.072468 -0700 default 06:55:16.072468 -0700 rsync > unable to bind any inbound sockets on port 873 > > > And > > # ps ax | grep rsync > 21693 ?? Ss 0:00.00 /opt/local/bin/rsync --daemon > --config=/opt/local/etc/rsyncd.conf > 23272 ?? Ss 0:00.01 /opt/local/bin/daemondo --label=rsyncd --start-cmd > /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.rsyncd/rsyncd.wrapper start ; > --stop-cmd /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.rsyncd/rsyncd.wrapper > stop ; --restart-cmd > /opt/local/etc/LaunchDaemons/org.macports.rsyncd/rsyncd.wrapper restart ; > --pid=fileauto --pidfile /opt/local/var/run/rsyncd.pid > # > > > Is the first one supposed to be running, or should daemondo start it > when needed? > > I'm wondering if that's why the port is already in use. > > Thanks. > > Kevin >
