Bug#304402: marked as done (consider moving logs to /var/log/installer?)
Your message dated Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:24:07 -0400
with message-id <20050617152407.GA18045@kitenet.net>
and subject line closing
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 12 Apr 2005 21:45:10 +0000
>From cjwatson@flatline.org.uk Tue Apr 12 14:45:10 2005
Return-path: <cjwatson@flatline.org.uk>
Received: from chiark.greenend.org.uk [193.201.200.170] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DLTC2-00017O-00; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 14:45:10 -0700
Received: from [192.168.124.112] (helo=riva.lab.dotat.at)
by chiark.greenend.org.uk (Debian Exim 3.35 #1) with esmtp
(return-path cjwatson@flatline.org.uk)
id 1DLTC0-0006ZZ-00
for submit@bugs.debian.org; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:45:08 +0100
Received: from cjwatson by riva.lab.dotat.at with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
for submit@bugs.debian.org
id 1DLTBz-0007tG-00; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:45:07 +0100
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 22:45:07 +0100
From: Colin Watson <cjwatson@debian.org>
To: submit@bugs.debian.org
Subject: consider moving logs to /var/log/installer?
Message-ID: <20050412214507.GA30006@riva.ucam.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
Delivered-To: submit@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: debian-installer,base-config
Severity: wishlist
<markos_> joeyh, fjp: i'm implementing logging for l-c, is it ok to use
/var/log/debian-installer/localization-config.log as logfile?
<fjp> markos_: I'm unsure about that. /var/log/d-i currently contains
only stuff that happens in 1st stage. Base-config also writes a
log in /var/log directly. I think it would be better to follow
that.
<fjp> Maybe a separate subdir should be created for 2nd stage
installation that would have both base-config's log and l-c's log.
<fjp> That's something to keep in mind for post Sarge.
<Kamion> can we just do /var/log/installer/ ?
<Kamion> and put *everything* in there?
<markos_> Kamion: i'm ok with that
<markos_> i'd probably also just create the dir if it doesn't exist....
<fjp> Kamion: :-D Having your Ubuntu hat on.
<fjp> Kamion: I agree though. Care to file a wishlist bug?
<Kamion> fjp: (I won't deny that it would get rid of one of my Ubuntu
diffs), but considering installer as debian-installer +
base-config as presented to users seems IMHO useful
Basically:
* The distinction between debian-installer and base-config is useful
to us, but end users really consider the two as one unit (and we
document them both in the same manual, etc.). As such, it makes
sense to structure their logs, and the logs of auxiliary programs
such as localization-config, all in the same place; but, given the
developer distinction, putting base-config logs in
/var/log/debian-installer/ would be weird.
* The /var/log/debian-installer/ directory name is confusing to users
of Debian derivatives when they see it, and it's hard work for
derivatives to brand it if they choose to because it appears in
translated messages in the installer and in the manual. As long as
there's a concrete reason to reorganise stuff anyway, it seems
useful to make this one neutral. I realise not everyone shares my
priorities on this one, but it is something that I for one have had
to put a lot of essentially grunt work into, so I try to free up
time from that sort of thing to real development where I can. :-)
Thanks,
--
Colin Watson [cjwatson@debian.org]
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 304402-done) by bugs.debian.org; 17 Jun 2005 18:33:43 +0000
>From joey@kitenet.net Fri Jun 17 11:33:42 2005
Return-path: <joey@kitenet.net>
Received: from kitenet.net [64.62.161.42] (postfix)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DjLew-00039D-00; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:33:42 -0700
Received: from dragon.kitenet.net (dpc6682244174.direcpc.com [66.82.244.174])
(using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(Client CN "Joey Hess", Issuer "Joey Hess" (verified OK))
by kitenet.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3332180CC
for <304402-done@bugs.debian.org>; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 18:33:39 +0000 (GMT)
Received: by dragon.kitenet.net (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id D712D6E643; Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2005 11:24:07 -0400
From: Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org>
To: 304402-done@bugs.debian.org
Subject: closing
Message-ID: <20050617152407.GA18045@kitenet.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
Delivered-To: 304402-done@bugs.debian.org
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_PAST_03_06,
ONEWORD autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
--M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This move is complete.
--=20
see shy jo
--M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFCsusXd8HHehbQuO8RAi19AKCg3gPFEK17FGedbdJzRv9XJ7aS1ACg0/Om
sLGErZH14L1q3C8xA19Q/qA=
=j+54
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--M9NhX3UHpAaciwkO--
Reply to: