[sysadmin-discuss] logrotate [LSARC/2008/359 FastTrack timeout 06/10/2008]

[Octave Orgeron]

Agreed. The logadm cli is pretty nifty and prevents one from having to manually edit files. Not to mention the fact that users can create their on conf files and cron jobs to rotate their own app logs.

 *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Octave J. Orgeron
Solaris Systems Engineer
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/sysadmin/
http://unixconsole.blogspot.com
unixconsole at yahoo.com
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


----- Original Message ----
From: Ralf Weber <opensolaris at fl1ger.de>
To: John Plocher <John.Plocher at Sun.COM>; sysadmin-discuss at opensolaris.org
Cc: Octave Orgeron <unixconsole at yahoo.com>; Alan Coopersmith <Alan.Coopersmith at Sun.COM>; Dean Roehrich <dr161460 at sac.sfbay.sun.com>; lsarc-ext at Sun.COM
Sent: Friday, June 6, 2008 2:35:35 AM
Subject: Re: [sysadmin-discuss] logrotate [LSARC/2008/359 FastTrack timeout 06/10/2008]

Moin!

On Jun 6, 2008, at 05:57 , John Plocher wrote:

> Octave Orgeron wrote:
>> 1. We stick with logadm, forget logrotate, and perhaps enhance  
>> logadm?
>> 2. We drop logadm and switch to logrotate.
>> 3. Standardize on logadm and make it handle logrotate.conf syntax  
>> in addition to the logadm.conf syntax.
>> 4. Standardize on logrotate and make it handle logadm.conf syntax  
>> in addition to the logrotate.conf syntax.
At least the last is IMHO a bad idea as logadm.conf shouldn't be  
edited (I now you can but then you are responsible for errors) with a  
text editor but instead manipulated by the logadm command line tool. I  
see this and other tools that behave this way in Solaris as a good way  
forward, using logrotate or logadm with plain text file for  
configuration IMHO would be a step backwards. Logadm works, we got  
used to it, so why change it?

>> and maybe
>
> 5.  Ship logadm as usual.  Put logrotate into the IPS non-core
>     repo for people to pull if desired (with all the caveats and
>     warning comments mentioned in this thread...), but ensure
>     that it does not get installed by default.
That's a possibility. Choice always is good, but it shouldn't be  
default and if the new packaging system (haven't looked into it yet)  
supports multiple software repositories it maybe would be a good idea  
to do a linux compatibility repository and put it in there.

So long
-Ralf
---
Ralf Weber
e: opensolaris at fl1ger.de