Bug#583127: apache2: add monit subconfig file
On 25 May 2010, at 22:19, Stefan Fritsch wrote:
> I have got this bug report about incuding a monit config file in the
> apache2 package. Since I know nothing about monit, I wanted to ask if
> you think this would be a good idea.
I'm aware of the issue, but I'm not sure about the best way to handle this.
If you have some thought on my arguments below, please share.
The basic issue is that it would be nice to easily be able to monitor newly
installed services. I totally agree on this.
However, should the monitor (in this case monit) be aware of all possible
services, or should the services provide monitor configuration files that are
Either way it increases the complexity and interactions between packages.
Say for example that monit updates it configuration file syntax, then all packages
that put a monitoring file (or symlink) in /etc/monit/monit.d/ must be updated.
On the other hand, keeping all configuration files in the monit package increase
the coordination that needs to be done in this package, updating of files when
new service packages are added etc.
Also of issue is that monit is far from the only monitoring system (although one
of the better, I recon). Should apache provide a config file for nagios as well?
A third concern is the separation of service types vs. implementations, i.e.
should both apache and lighttpd include a http monitoring configuration file?
And which service should be restarted if http does not respond?
Maybe a compromise would be to include a configuration set of "core services" in
monit that are monitored by default, and more seldom used services could provide
a configuration symlink if needed (but how would monit know which services
to enable to avoid lots of "service down" warnings when e.g. apache is not even
Or, just go ahead and put the symlink there from the postinst script and remove it
from prerm :-). Thats what the monit.d directory is there for anyway.