Re: PROPOSAL: dpkg-logger and related
Ben Collins wrote:
> None the less, dpkg
> should come with a default perl script that does nothing more than echo
> to stdout, or maybe write a file directly. This would only serve as a
> failsafe during situations of system duress.
> The dpkg-logger package would then insert itself as the 'official'
> alternative, unless an unofficial one is installed of course. Needless
> to say it should be tagged as a base install package.
> Planned features for the dpkg-logger program from the suggestions:
> 1) Continue to use syslog, but notice when syslog is not running and
> attempt to deduce where syslog would have put the messages if it were.
> Only do this if it's obvious from /etc/syslog.conf, that the default
> line is still present. If the local6 line has changed, then output the
> messages to screen, with a warning telling the user that it is not
> being logged.
So you now have a complex structure with two different logger programs, one
of which will only be used rarely so it won't get good testing, plus you
have a rudimentry re-implmentation of syslog in dpkg-logger, plus you bother
the user to let them know that the program can't accomplish something as
simple as logging some data.
Doesn't this seem a little absurd to anyone?
The right thing to do is to finish up the configuration management stuff
instead, the existing proposals for it already take logging into account.
see shy jo