Hi Yaakov, please see below. On 03/16/2010 10:31 PM, Yaakov Nemoy wrote: > Hey List, > > In the org that i work for, we use logwatch for log monitoring. Since > puppet is too new to have a module in logwatch, i've had the 'joy' > recently of attempting to write a functional module. In doing so, i > have a number of issues i would like to bring up about logwatch in > Fedora (and RHEL/CentOS). > > To begin with, like a good netizen, i sent a message to the mailing > list upstream. So far i've heard no reply. There's the chance that it > got caught in my spam filter, but i've gotten one message from the ML > already. It feels like upstream is dead. There has also been no > release since 2007. Since it still 'just works' i won't bring out the > fire and brimstone and demand it be removed, but i would like to know, > how are we going to support this? Yes, the upstream is almost dead. Nevertheless I believe if someone (anyone) starts to be active on their mailing list, it will make things move again in a good direction. If it does not, it makes sense to do a fork, because a _lot_ of people use the package, send patches, and improve logwatch in a long run. I have had this in my todo list since 5 months or so, even promising it to a colleague of mine that time. Unfortunately there are still things with higher priority to be done. If you can help and devote some time to logwatch, then we should cooperate. > This question is important in the context of the issues i had > programming for logwatch. A well programmed tool maintains orthogonal > features in an orthogonal way. I ran into some serious bugs while > trying to develop a robust module. Logwatch has two modes, one for a > machine with a single set of logs, and one for generating reports for > a machine with multiple logs, namely your centralised logging box. The > snippets of code that filter the logs you want to analyse allow you to > control for the date range and the machine the logged event was > generated on. When trying to code for the puppet logs, my code > ultimately only worked on the single nodes, but crapped out on our > logging box. After debugging the issue, it's obvious that it's doing > some prefiltering per host that is occluding all the puppet logs, when > the 'splithosts' feature is enabled. Extending and maintaining this > package is going to be difficult without a willing maintainer. If this > is just something that needs a bug report, i would appreciate if the > package maintainer, according to zodbot Karel Klíč, could speak up on > this. Extending and maintaining a package are two different things. I believe that discussing some programming issues and source code design is out of scope for Fedora maintainer role. It would be too much work to do it for every package. > If no one is willing to maintain logwatch, i would like to ask why is > it enabled by default? For most environments, logwatch is > ignored/disabled in lieu of other solutions.People who use logwatch > seriously are already aware of its presence and will enable it when > disabled. They are also generaly experts, and from my experience been > around the sysadmin block quite a few times. For the non-expert user, > discussions of target audience aside, either they know about logwatch, > and perhaps keep an eye on it, or will never find it. I refer to the > fact that the only way to know about logwatch on a running system is > that innocous "you've got mail in /var/spool/mail/root' message. Then > you have to know to open up your mbox, which in my case means > installing mutt which is not installed by default, and read it, and > then know it's logwatch, and realize what it's there for. There are > 'expert tips' i've seen that remind newbs to check logwatch on their > own machines, but if this is something important, it should be more > obvious, and if it's not so important, why is it enabled by default? Is it really enabled by default on Fedora? It should not be enabled in a desktop spin, and Fedora currently has no server spin. If logwatch is installed and enabled on some spin one day, this should be documented in the deployment guide, so inexperienced users can read about the presence of logwatch, and how to use it. I am willing to write something if others feel it's necessary. > I'm not going to bike shed, so i'm not going to ask for any particular > action. We don't have the time in our organisation to take up > maintenance of logwatch, so we clearly are going to look for another > solution. Still, i would like to ask the persons who made the decision > to enable this by default, is it still relevant? Or is it something > that's in danger of becoming cruft? Am i missing a certain perspective > on why it's enabled by default? > > -Yaakov Best regards, Karel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
