Re: Bug#54810: ought to depend on logrotate
On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 09:37:23PM +0000, Steve Haslam wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2000 at 10:26:03PM +0100, Gergely Madarasz wrote:
> > I see... so I think there should be some policy about logrotate...
>
> I agree.
>
> My position, FWIW, is that packages should depend on logrotate unless
> they provide a method of rotating the logs when logrotate is not
> present, in which case they should either recommend or suggest it.
>
> The point being, that if a package maintainer is providing a logrotate
> config file, then s/he intended the logs to be rotated, and the logs
> not being rotated is a situation where the package is malfunctioning.
I am not sure I like the idea of packages rotation their logs on their own,
if logrotate isn't installed; I think of it as, if the logs are going to be
rotated, that is a job for a general purpose log-rotator, so why should the
wheel be reinvented with each package?
Also, using logrotate allows for a centralization of configuring the
rotating of logs -- one of my complaints with other linux distros is that
sometimes the setup info is spread in many different places. (It gets worse
with commercial unices, the ones I have used in any event...
/usr/mmdf/mmdftailor, &c)
So to my way of thinking, no logs should be rotated if there isn't a
logrotate package installed. If there is one or not is up to the
administrator, though I strongly suggest one...
(Where this breaks down is of course programs that are smart enough to trim
their logs at X bytes, to avoid eating a whole partition with logs... how
should they be handled? I don't know. :)
ObDisclaimer: I am not a debian developer (yet).
--
Seth Arnold | http://www.willamette.edu/~sarnold/
Hate spam? See http://maps.vix.com/rbl/ for help
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into
your ~/.signature to help me spread!
Reply to: