On Sat, Jan 02, 1999 at 05:08:33PM +0100, Martin Bialasinski wrote:
> >> "MS" == Martin Schulze <joey@finlandia.Infodrom.North.DE> writes:
> MS> I don't think that attemts re/directing output from certain
> MS> scripts to log files is the proper way. Instead the correct
> MS> place to enable/disable/direct/redirect logging is dpkg. Dpkg
> MS> should be aware of logging and input/output redirection.
> Hmm, this would make it even easier. No need to change the *inst
> files, dpkg could log its actions like "installing foo ... finished",
> "installing bar ... problem, leaving unconfigured" independent from
> the *inst scripts.
Dpkg should do it's own logging of the output it normally send to the
screen. This is part of what I am proposing. Having dpkg redirect a
scripts normal output is not going be easier, in fact it will just be a
hack that captures input that is normally sent to the screen. The
dpkg-logger is meant for packages only, and allows the maintainer much
more control of what he/she sends to stdout and what they think
_really_ needs to be logged since it may be needed later. Dpkg cannot
assume any of that info.
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <email@example.com> Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. firstname.lastname@example.org
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
- Re: dpkg-logger
- From: email@example.com (Martin Bialasinski)