@Phil_C: You'd need to enable debugging first for it to be any use
.
The very low PID and lack of startup banner is mildly worrying, though...
e.g., it could look something like
Code:
Jun 20 06:42:26 nanoclock[759]: Initialized NanoClock v0.9.6-42-ga14f7e9 (2021-06-20) with FBInk v1.23.2-50-g9e6b568 for Kobo
Jun 20 06:42:26 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 759)
Jun 20 06:42:26 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 759 vs. clock marker: 759 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:42:30 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage rectangle 184x70+206+994 does not intersect with the clock's 80x32+991+1408
Jun 20 06:42:30 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 760)
Jun 20 06:42:30 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 760 vs. clock marker: 760 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:42:47 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage rectangle 260x488+280+233 does not intersect with the clock's 80x32+991+1408
Jun 20 06:42:48 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 761)
Jun 20 06:42:48 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 761 vs. clock marker: 761 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:42:49 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 762)
Jun 20 06:42:49 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 762 vs. clock marker: 762 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:42:52 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 763)
Jun 20 06:42:52 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 763 vs. clock marker: 763 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:42:53 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 764)
Jun 20 06:42:53 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 764 vs. clock marker: 764 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:43:00 nanoclock[759]: Updated clock (marker: 765)
Jun 20 06:43:00 nanoclock[759]: No clock update necessary: damage marker: 765 vs. clock marker: 765 (found: true)
Jun 20 06:43:29 nanoclock[759]: Tripped IN_CLOSE_WRITE for wd 1 (config's: 1)
Jun 20 06:43:29 nanoclock[759]: Config file was modified, reloading it