[Icecast] Icecast won't start on system boot

[Steve Matzura]

On Sun, 29 Mar 2015 05:22:14 +0000, you wrote:

>On 03/26/2015 09:02 PM, Steve Matzura wrote:
>> Well, here's the whole output from systemctl.
>>
>> # systemctl status icecast -l
>> icecast.service - Icecast Network Audio Streaming Server
>>    Loaded: loaded (/usr/lib/systemd/system/icecast.service; enabled)
>>    Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Thu 2015-03-26 18:06:10
>> CET; 38min ago
>>   Process: 839 ExecStart=/usr/bin/icecast -c /etc/icecast.xml
>> (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
>>  Main PID: 839 (code=exited, status=1/FAILURE)
>>    CGroup: /system.slice/icecast.service
>>
>> Mar 26 18:06:09 {my-FQDN} systemd[1]: Starting Icecast Network Audio
>> Streaming Server...
>> Mar 26 18:06:09 {my-FQDN} systemd[1]: Started Icecast Network Audio
>> Streaming Server.
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} icecast[839]: [2015-03-26  18:06:09] WARN
>> CONFIG/_parse_root Warning, <location> not configured, using default
>> value "Earth".
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} icecast[839]: [2015-03-26  18:06:09] WARN
>> CONFIG/_parse_root Warning, <admin> contact not configured, using
>> default value "icemaster at localhost".
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} icecast[839]: ERROR: You should not run
>> icecast2 as root
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} icecast[839]: Use the changeowner directive
>> in the config file
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} systemd[1]: icecast.service: main process
>> exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
>> Mar 26 18:06:10 {my-FQDN} systemd[1]: Unit icecast.service entered
>> failed state.
>>
>> I have since defined location and contact, but they were only warnings
>> anyway. The XML definitely contains a changeowner section with user
>> defined as nobody and group defined as nogroup.
>
>Are those inside the <security> section?

Ya know, there are none so blind ... IT'S BEEN COMMENTED OUT!

<security>
        <chroot>0</chroot>
        <!--
        <changeowner>
            <user>admin</user>
            <group>admin</group>
        </changeowner>
        -->
    </security>

I'll try it with the comment lines removed and let you know. I swear I
read this a half a hundred times and didn't notice it until JUST NOW!