Re: PROPOSAL: dpkg-logger and related
>> "JH" == Joey Hess <joey@kitenet.net> writes:
JH> If the above message is important, policy requires that the postinst pause
JH> until the user hits return.
JH> If the above message is not important, policy prohibts the package from
JH> outputting it.
My point. Following this, we don't need to replace echo statements
and such. We just have to redirect stderr and stdout.
>> Syslog is already a proven and stable package
JH> Syslog can be configured to send messages via UDP to a central
JH> server, in such a setup, it is not guarenteed that the messages
JH> will ever be tranmitted if there is a network problem or server
JH> outage. This is generally acceptable for normal types of log
JH> output, but not for the new purpose you are using syslog for, not
JH> for the sending of vital information the admin must see.
The default logger in dpkg should just output to console and as a
option to a file.
If the user chooses to install a dpkg-logger variante which uses
syslog, it is his choice and he should be sure about the consequences.
The minimal dpkg-logger also helps to ensure, that logging takes place, even
if one replaces syslog or the logger himself are replaced etc. he takes over
until the replacement is fully functional.
JH> Also, what about people starting up a system in single user mode, when
JH> syslogd is not running, and installing a package. Again, messages would be
JH> lost.
The syslog variant should fall back to the generic logger, if it
doesn't find syslogd running at least.
JH> Finally, I have qualms about this whole design in general. You
JH> don't seem to have considered how this is supposed to mesh with
JH> the configuration management system we will (hopefully) be
JH> implmenting in the future.
I don't see a problem. A general problem at least with the topics
discussed on debian-admintool. Although the proposal looks a bit
detached, it should fit into the sheme.
Ciao,
Martin
Reply to: