On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 14:03 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 16:47 -0400, James Laska wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 13:44 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > I know there's a bit of a backlog of proposed criteria changes I really > > > should look at, but wanted to write this one down before it escapes. Per > > > the thread 'Syslog not running?', I'd like to propose the following > > > Alpha criterion for future releases: > > > > > > * A system logging infrastructure must be available, enabled by default, > > > and must work as intended, and in accordance with relevant standards > > > accepted by the Project > > > > > > (Improvements to the wording welcome, I'm trying to keep it from going > > > stale by not specifying particular logger implementations or file > > > locations) > > > > ACK! :) > > > > My usual concerns about encompassing too much ... should we elaborate on > > "working as intended"? Clearly we are interested in whether it works in > > the most basic sense ... not if remote logging a select set of messages > > to another system fails (or is that included too)? > > No, I think basic local logging is all we're interested in. Revision: > > * A system logging infrastructure must be available and enabled by > default. It must provide at least basic local file-based logging of > kernel messages, and allow other components to write log messages. This > must be done in accordance with relevant standards accepted by the > Project > > better? Very nice, better than anything I could think of. Thanks, James
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
