Re: Bug#78782: general: confusion among system log daemons
"KORN Andras" <korn@chardonnay.math.bme.hu> wrote:
>Apparently, the following (virtual and actual) packages related to
>system logging exist:
>
>- sysklogd (actual). There is no need for logcheck to depend on it. In
>fact, logcheck's dependency on sysklogd and suggestion of syslog-ng
>contradict each other (since syslog-ng conflicts with sysklogd). Once
>debian has made up their mind about what to call the virtual syslogd
>package (system-log-daemon or syslogd),
It's in /usr/share/doc/debian-policy/virtual-package-names-list.text.gz
as system-log-daemon.
>it would be enough for the
>packages logcheck, anacron, sympa, g2s, xwatch and smtpfeed to depend
>on that virtual package (instead of depending on one of many actual
>packages that provide it - or, as things are now, either of the two
>names of the same virtual package). anacron's dependency on 'sysklogd |
>system-log-daemon' is probably one example of the kludges this
>confusion has created.
sysklogd | system-log-daemon is fine; that depends on system-log-daemon,
and encourages the package tools to pick sysklogd from the various
packages that provide it (since sysklogd is Priority: required, this is
reasonable).
>linux-kernel-log-daemon appears to be a virtual package invented by
>msyslog's maintainer - is this right? No other package mentions it. Perhaps
>they should (?).
This package name is also in the list in policy. kernel-log-daemon
isn't.
--
Colin Watson [cjw44@flatline.org.uk]
Reply to: