Re: PROPOSAL: dpkg-logger and related
Ben Collins wrote:
> None the less, dpkg
> should come with a default perl script that does nothing more than echo
> to stdout, or maybe write a file directly. This would only serve as a
> failsafe during situations of system duress.
>
> The dpkg-logger package would then insert itself as the 'official'
> alternative, unless an unofficial one is installed of course. Needless
> to say it should be tagged as a base install package.
>
> Planned features for the dpkg-logger program from the suggestions:
>
> 1) Continue to use syslog, but notice when syslog is not running and
> attempt to deduce where syslog would have put the messages if it were.
> Only do this if it's obvious from /etc/syslog.conf, that the default
> line is still present. If the local6 line has changed, then output the
> messages to screen, with a warning telling the user that it is not
> being logged.
So you now have a complex structure with two different logger programs, one
of which will only be used rarely so it won't get good testing, plus you
have a rudimentry re-implmentation of syslog in dpkg-logger, plus you bother
the user to let them know that the program can't accomplish something as
simple as logging some data.
Doesn't this seem a little absurd to anyone?
The right thing to do is to finish up the configuration management stuff
instead, the existing proposals for it already take logging into account.
--
see shy jo
Reply to: