On Tue, 28 May 2024 at 08:43, Guillem Jover <guil...@debian.org> wrote: > > 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.
That means such packages cannot be installed in minimal containers without pulling in half the universe. And then people wonder why Debian is slowly fading into irrelevance, and other distributions are being built from scratch instead of using Debian for container guests. Yes, let's ignore today's number one Linux use case by usage to avoid ever so slightly inconveniencing an openly hostile downstream, that sure sounds like a winning strategy if there ever was one.
