Hans de Goede wrote:
Hi all,
Many packages drop config files for logrotate in /etc/logrotate.d.
without requiring logrotate, which is the owner of
/etc/logrotate.d, thus potentially leading to an unowned
/etc/logrotate.d for users who don't want logrotate and thus remove it.
I see 2 solutions for this:
1) Add "Requires: logrotate" to all packages which put files in
/etc/logrotate.d. IMHO this is not good as the user should be able
to choose if he wants logrotate or not.
2) Add /etc/logrotate.d to the filesystem package, this is my preferred
solution.
I would like to hear what others think, before filing a bug against
filesystem requesting 2) .
Regards,
Hans
Requiring logrotate is not really preferred, since people may choose to
remove logrotate and it does not make any real sense that you can't
install httpd or cups or others without a pre-chosen log-management
package (exactly as you point out).
On the other hand, putting /etc/logrotate.d in the filesystem package is
probably not a too much better, since we will still be installing stuff
for a particular log-management package, that may not even be there.
This seems wrong to me.
So since we're already discussing this, what if all packages that put
stuff in logrotate.d, do so from a sub-package... httpd-logrotate (or
something)... The -logrotate sub packages should require logrotate and
of-course the main package (httpd in this case). Users can remove
logrotate and with it, all the -logrotate subpackages from cups, httpd
and the rest, but the software will still install and run just fine.
This method has the added benefit of giving us a cleaner way to provide
log-management for everything, based on an entirely different
log-management tool. Put <XXrotatelogsXX> in extras and provide a
http-<XXrotatelogsXX> package and all is good.
Just my .5€s worth
/Thomas
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
