Hi! On Tue, 2024-05-28 at 10:57:13 +0900, Simon Richter wrote: > On 5/27/24 22:18, Simon McVittie wrote: > > So I think your syslogd-is-journald could not be a Provides on the > > existing systemd-sysv package, and would have to be a separate package. > > I'm not sure that the benefit is worth it (and I see that Luca is sure > > that the benefit *isn't* worth it). > > I agree -- that's why I suggested changing the dependency to > > "systemd-sysv | system-log-daemon" > > This does not require an extra package, leaves out the system-log-daemon on > most systems, still leaves the option of co-installing a flat logging daemon > parallel to journald, and the packages work out-of-the-box on derived > non-systemd distributions, so we don't waste developer time on maintaining a > fork just for this issue.
I also care about portability and non-default alternatives, so I assume for packages I maintain I'll be going instead with: "<real-syslogd> | system-log-daemon | systemd-sysv" I don't think the original proposal is technically sound to represent what is really going on with logging, but given its tone and how it is being rushed (not even a day for discussion), it seems to me like spending time thinking or proposing alternatives would be a waste of time and energy. Regards, Guillem
