On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:56:21AM -0500, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
> > I'm really against splitting the modules up into more subpackages,
> > regardless of how many it is. I will not spend any time looking at how
> > to do that. I won't spend time discussing further plans to do something
> > I don
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:34:00AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
> >> At the moment though, all of this is just talk anyway. If something
> >> like this is to happen, someone
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> > I'm open to this idea, but I think it's nicer if one can go from the
>> > reduced
>> > selection to the full just by adding in the right package, not changing or
>> > removin
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:44:58AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I'm open to this idea, but I think it's nicer if one can go from the reduced
> > selection to the full just by adding in the right package, not changing or
> > removing things. Unlike PAE or etc., I don't think we'd actually build
> >
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> > All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
>> > existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
>> > though. It just makes
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:33:27AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > All of this can probably already be done with a new 'flavor' in the
> > existing kernel.spec. I really wouldn't do the common/minimal split
> > though. It just makes it more complicated for not a whole lot of gain.
> >
> > The
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
> > You'd want to do it something like that.
> >
> > kernel-minimal as you say but with a Provides: kernel, kernel-common as you
> > say.
> >
> >
> > I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both of those
> > and implicitly Provides: kernel
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:43 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
> Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
>> With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
>> draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
>> package ?
>
> with vmxnet3, vmw_pvscsi, vmw
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:38 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>> I would think the only "sane" way would be to just change the packaing,
>> not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
>> kernels).
We already build multiple kernels.
On 10/17/2012 01:46 PM, David Malcolm wrote:
Random worry about this: would this work OK with yum's "keep the last 3
kernels around" functionality?
That's obviously something that would have to be tested if this is
attempted.
I'm not signing up for this work, I was just making a suggestion
On Wed, 2012-10-17 at 11:38 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> > I would think the only "sane" way would be to just change the packaing,
> > not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
> > kernels).
> >
> > For example, a "kernel-minim
Am 17.10.2012 18:52, schrieb Dave Jones:
> With virtualised environments supporting pci/usb passthrough, where do you
> draw the line on what hardware to support in a hypothetical kernel-cloud
> package ?
with vmxnet3, vmw_pvscsi, vmw_balloon to support vSphere
(all included in the upstream ker
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:40:39 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both
> > of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
> > get the "kernel" metapackage w
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:38:13AM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I'd introduce a third metapackage just "kernel" that requires both
> of those and implicitly Provides: kernel. Most people would just
> get the "kernel" metapackage when a transaction asks for something
> to provide "kernel", but if
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 01:32:23PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> There will always be requests to move modules from -common to -minimal,
> and it shouldn't be a big fight (I would bet most requests would be
> pretty obvious). That already exists some for -modules-extras.
That's why I suggest defini
On 10/17/2012 11:32 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
I would think the only "sane" way would be to just change the packaing,
not actually build multiple kernels (or even multiple packages with
kernels).
For example, a "kernel-minimal" that has the kernel and the "core"
modules loaded in most installs (e.g
Once upon a time, Richard W.M. Jones said:
> It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
> same kernel (identical vmlinuz) with groups of modules, then I'm
> assuming this is the same as what everyone else is proposing.
I would think the only "sane" way would be to just change the
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:34:22PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> If it is all about using kernel-minimal (or whatever it is called)
> instead of kernel there is no extra work for the ones that build
> minimal images at all.
It really depends on what 'kernel-minimal' is. If it's the
same kernel (identic
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:34 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
>>> wrote:
>>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
>> wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> >> > Basically: it's hard,
>> >> it is a mess.
>> >>
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> > Basically: it's hard,
> >> it is a mess.
> >> > but the only way we're going to get to a
> >> > reasonably-small m
On Wed, 17 Oct 2012, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
> > think it has to be.
>
> No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel;
> use a compressed
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:59:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
> > think it has to be.
>
> No you could also use a different kernel image; build your own kernel;
> use a compressed filesystem, don't use a kernel at all a
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> > Basically: it's hard,
>> it is a mess.
>> > but the only way we're going to get to a
>> > reasonably-small minimal image,
>> not true.
>
> Given that the kernel is currently a ful
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:37:29AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> What the hell did you drink today, Bill? Basically what you're
> suggesting is that Fedora move to a kmod model for everything. Which
> means you'd have to install all of them by default anyway or the kernel
> team would be swamped wit
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:38:55PM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> > Basically: it's hard,
> it is a mess.
> > but the only way we're going to get to a
> > reasonably-small minimal image,
> not true.
Given that the kernel is currently a full quarter of the current image, I
think it has to be.
> > so if t
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
>>> make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
>>> is.
> [...]
>> Both -
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>>> If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
>>> make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
>>> is.
> [...]
>> Both
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:47:34AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> If you're suggesting 1, I'd be really really opposed to that. It would
>> make packaging in kernel.spec even more of a nightmare than it already
>> is.
[...]
> Both - if people want firmware packages split out of linux-firmware, i
Josh Boyer (jwbo...@gmail.com) said:
> > However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
> > the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
> > the module -> firmware level by generating it from the MODULE_FIRMWARE tags.
> > (Unless you're relyin
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 02:13:35PM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> This is implemented now, but I called it --since= and --until=. I'll
> push this into F18 as well, sicne it's actually a minor change only, and
> just too useful.
Thanks Lennart. This is great stuff.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fe
On Tue, 09.10.12 23:24, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
> I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
> is much less of a "necessity" than other things the journal provides,
> which syslog does not: for example per-service rate limits, and
> unfakable m
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
>> > I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
>> >
>> > I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
>> > (but of course I could be wrong).
>>
>> It use to be option
On Thu, 11.10.12 01:48, Lennart Poettering (mzerq...@0pointer.de) wrote:
> On Wed, 10.10.12 16:50, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
>
> > "My laptop started acting up last tuesday, I should see whats in the
> > logs from then"
> >
> > "I'd like to run a daily report on my logs"
>
> These tw
On 10/16/2012 01:39 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
one may say "disk storage is nothing these days"
iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
on really expensive SAN-storage where "disk space is cheap"
is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
for production un
>>> one may say "disk storage is nothing these days"
>>> iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
>>> on really expensive SAN-storage where "disk space is cheap"
>>> is not true
>>
>> And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
>
> for production under load not really a good
Am 16.10.2012 09:19, schrieb Nicolas Mailhot:
>
>
>> one may say "disk storage is nothing these days"
>> iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
>> on really expensive SAN-storage where "disk space is cheap"
>> is not true
>
> And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping sa
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 09:07:56AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
> However, if you go down that route, the kernel should be the same way,
> the firmware should be separate subpackages, and requires should be done at
> the module -> firmware l
Peter Robinson (pbrobin...@gmail.com) said:
> > I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
> >
> > I would expect many virt env's don't need any firmware to work...
> > (but of course I could be wrong).
>
> It use to be optional, I know on the olpc xo-1 it use to be optional
> and there s
>> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
>> > > But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
>> > > systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
>> > > Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
>>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:36:20PM -0400, john.flor...@dart.biz wrote:
> > From: Bill Nottingham
> >
> > Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
> > > Well, we do currently have the "minimal" environment, which boils
> > > down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces (authconfig,
> >
> one may say "disk storage is nothing these days"
> iw ould say: mulitply it with 20, 50, 100 virtual machines
> on really expensive SAN-storage where "disk space is cheap"
> is not true
And I would say : get an entreprisey deduping san
--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.f
Am 16.10.2012 01:50, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:11:19 -0400
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
>> [...]
>>> I'd agree with Harald here. A hard dep seems exces
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 19:11:19 -0400
Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > > >> I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
> [...]
> > I'd agree with Harald here. A hard dep seems excessive, just
> > including the package in the @core
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:38:36PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > >> I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
[...]
> I'd agree with Harald here. A hard dep seems excessive, just including
> the package in the @core group (so people who want something *really*
> minimal can at least t
On Mon, 2012-10-15 at 21:48 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 15.10.2012 21:43, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> > Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> >>> 122659574 kernel
> >>> 117821428 glibc-common
> >>> 35623360linux-firmware
> >>> 14233540coreutils
> >>> 13845828
Am 15.10.2012 22:02, schrieb Chris Murphy:
> On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> With this, the three versions of "minimal" you give come down to about:
>>
>> @core + kernel: 300MB
>> systemd [...] yum: 240MB 20% savings
>> systemd + not yum: 195M 35% savings
>>
>
On Oct 15, 2012, at 1:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Total download size: 94 M
Installed size: 401 M
>>> Of which one quarter is the kernel and the other quarter is glibc locale
>>> support, right?
>> Or more:
>> 122659574
Am 15.10.2012 21:47, schrieb Matthew Miller:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Total download size: 94 M
Installed size: 401 M
>>> Of which one quarter is the kernel and the other quarter is glibc locale
>>> support, right?
>> Or more:
>> 122659574
Am 15.10.2012 21:43, schrieb Bill Nottingham:
> Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
>>> 122659574 kernel
>>> 117821428 glibc-common
>>> 35623360linux-firmware
>>> 14233540coreutils
>>> 13845828glibc
>>
>> I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
>>
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:43:11PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> "It depends". It includes firmware for wired NICs as well as other things,
> so it depends on what hardware your virtual environment is deciding to
> emulate.
Whatever hardware support is needed to run out-of-box in KVM, Xen,
Virtu
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 03:24:09PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > Total download size: 94 M
> > > Installed size: 401 M
> > Of which one quarter is the kernel and the other quarter is glibc locale
> > support, right?
> Or more:
> 122659574 kernel
> 117821428 glibc-common
> 35623360
Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) said:
> > 122659574 kernel
> > 117821428 glibc-common
> > 35623360linux-firmware
> > 14233540coreutils
> > 13845828glibc
>
> I wonder... could we make linux-firmware optional?
>
> I would expect many virt env's don't need any fir
Am 15.10.2012 21:34, schrieb Kevin Fenzi:
> On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:24:09 -0400
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
>
>> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>>> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
On Mon, 15 Oct 2012 15:24:09 -0400
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
> > > systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd
Matthew Miller (mat...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
> > systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
> > Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
> > Total downlo
> From: Bill Nottingham
>
> Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
> > Well, we do currently have the "minimal" environment, which boils
> > down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces (authconfig,
> > system-config-firewall-base, kernel, bootloader). You can get to
> > that via k
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 02:19:03PM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> But hey, I don't need to install packages or want python!
> systemd+ util-linux + bash + initscripts + passwd:
> Install 6 Packages (+108 Dependent packages)
> Total download size: 94 M
> Installed size: 401 M
Of which one quarter
Jesse Keating (jkeat...@j2solutions.net) said:
> Well, we do currently have the "minimal" environment, which boils
> down to @core + the couple things anaconda forces (authconfig,
> system-config-firewall-base, kernel, bootloader). You can get to
> that via kickstart with just:
>
> %packages
> @
On Oct 9, 2012, at 7:14 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> Anaconda isn't going to do that unless there is rpm support to re-docify
> yourself. To accomplish this right now, every package would have to split
> out a -docs subpackage with all the docs in it. Anaconda /might/ do what you
> want in t
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 1:36 AM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
> On Fri, 12.10.12 15:29, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
>> And we've got a lot of technology going around. journald - that's
>> technology. rsyslog - that's technology. libumberlog & ceelog - that's
>> technology.
>
> THis re
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:29 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Konstantin Ryabitsev (i...@fedoraproject.org) said:
>> So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
>> modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
>
> Right, you'll have to port them to understand CEE from upda
On Fri, 12.10.12 15:29, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote:
Heya,
> And we've got a lot of technology going around. journald - that's
> technology. rsyslog - that's technology. libumberlog & ceelog - that's
> technology.
THis really makes me wonder where CEE actually belongs in this. Is
Konstantin Ryabitsev (i...@fedoraproject.org) said:
> > Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
> > is compatible with the journal. Not to my knowledge, no. But adding this
> > should be fairly easy as the output of "journalctl" is a pixel-perfect
> > copy of the ori
On 10/9/12 12:34 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On 10/9/12 9:18 AM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
From the list of packages this minimal set still installs, that I'd
really like to see gone:
chkconfig
gamin
info
systemd-sysv
chkconfig seems like it could have the 'alternatives' bit split off.
I've not i
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:16:49AM -0500, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > Honestly, we should be building glib2 with --disable-fam, since glib
> > will prefer the inotify notification module anyway (it has prio 20 and
> > fam prio 10).
>
> It looks[1] like Matthias was wa
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 08:43:22AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 07:17:58PM +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
> > > libxml2 takes up 5.2M, of which 3.8M is docs
> > It really should go in -devel, I agree !
>
> Check it out -- we've accomplished something with this thread. :
On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 01:48:07 +0200
Lennart Poettering wrote:
> These two are much better implemented via explicit time seeks. The
> journal APIs support that just fine, journalctl currently
> doesn't. However it's trivial to add that based on the lower level
> APIs, the only thing that stopped me
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 14:37 -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
> >> Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
> >
> > Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
> > is compatible with the journal. Not to my
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 01:48:07AM +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > "My laptop started acting up last tuesday, I should see whats in the
> > logs from then"
> > "I'd like to run a daily report on my logs"
> These two are much better implemented via explicit time seeks. The
> journal APIs suppor
On Wed, 10.10.12 16:50, Kevin Fenzi (ke...@scrye.com) wrote:
> "My laptop started acting up last tuesday, I should see whats in the
> logs from then"
>
> "I'd like to run a daily report on my logs"
These two are much better implemented via explicit time seeks. The
journal APIs support that just
On 10/09/2012 07:25 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
Can't you just you reinstall a package without the nodocs switch/conf in
place to get the docs land on disk ?
You probably also have to skip the scripts, which can have some
unintended consequences. Also it means downloading the entire package
set, n
Once upon a time, Matthew Miller said:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:44:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > Well, hang on, Kay. My understanding was that we're trying to make
> > syslog an optional install in Fedora 18 (or is it 19?). If that is the
>
> The suggestion was to propose this a
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012 22:02:26 +0200
Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
...snip...
> > So make it really better and support time-based rotation. You don't
> > need to make time-based rotation the default, but you'll make a lot
> > of people happy to have the
On Oct 10, 2012, at 2:54 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> On Wed, 10.10.12 14:39, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
>
>> How is rsyslog properly disabled?
>>
>> sockets.target syslog.target rsyslog.service all seem related.
>
> "systemctl disable rsyslog.service" should suffice.
I
On Wed, 10.10.12 14:39, Chris Murphy (li...@colorremedies.com) wrote:
>
> On Oct 10, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>
> > Syslog is by fact today already an "add-on", and not a
> > required component, it is just installed by default today. I don't use
> > or run syslog on any of my boxes s
On Wed, 10.10.12 22:19, Tomasz Torcz (to...@pipebreaker.pl) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> > So make it really better and support time-based rotation. You don't need
> > to make time-based rotation the default, but you'll make a lot of people
> > happy to ha
On Wed, 10.10.12 21:06, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:58:45AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Like to me rsyslog since the journal is an integrated part of systemd.
>
> Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the journal, why does it need
>
On Oct 10, 2012, at 2:02 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> Syslog is by fact today already an "add-on", and not a
> required component, it is just installed by default today. I don't use
> or run syslog on any of my boxes since quite a while.
How is rsyslog properly disabled?
sockets.target syslog.targe
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:58:45AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
>> Like to me rsyslog since the journal is an integrated part of systemd.
>
> Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the journal, why does it need
> to be part o
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:06:56PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:58:45AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> > Like to me rsyslog since the journal is an integrated part of systemd.
>
> Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the journal, why does it need
> to
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Simo Sorce wrote:
> So make it really better and support time-based rotation. You don't need
> to make time-based rotation the default, but you'll make a lot of people
> happy to have the option.
Journald will rotate logs when signalled with SIGUSR2. So
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> I think you overestimate how much a sysadmin cares about fake
>> messages. The thing that's really important to a sysadmin is to make
>> sure that none of the REAL messages are lost. If someone fakes root
>> login entries by using something as
On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 10:58:45AM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> Like to me rsyslog since the journal is an integrated part of systemd.
Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the journal, why does it need
to be part of systemd? Why not have it as a separate project?
(Perhaps requiring
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 21:44 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
>> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
>> > wrote:
>> >> I am not generally against adding time-based ro
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 21:44 +0200, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
> > wrote:
> >> I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
> >> is much less of a "necessity"
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:31 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>> I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
>> is much less of a "necessity" than other things the journal provides,
>> which syslog does not:
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:24 PM, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> I am not generally against adding time-based rotation, but really, this
> is much less of a "necessity" than other things the journal provides,
> which syslog does not: for example per-service rate limits, and
> unfakable meta-data for lo
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:01 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> Additionally, it _would_ be cool for log monitoring and analysis tools to
> gain journald support, so that users of those tools can take advantage of
> all the features Lennart lists. If we could have some of those in place
> along with the
On Wed, 2012-10-10 at 15:01 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:44:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> > case, then even if I require rsyslog for a package, that won't work
> > unless rsyslog is started and running. So, sysadmin's experience
> > changes:
> > Was: Insta
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> Additionally, it _would_ be cool for log monitoring and analysis tools to
> gain journald support, so that users of those tools can take advantage of
> all the features Lennart lists. If we could have some of those in place
> along with the
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:44:53PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> Well, hang on, Kay. My understanding was that we're trying to make
> syslog an optional install in Fedora 18 (or is it 19?). If that is the
The suggestion was to propose this as a feature for F19. I think there's
some addition
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:44 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>>> So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
>>> modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
>>
>> What part of "Run the syslog daemon like you alwa
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Kay Sievers wrote:
>> So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
>> modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
>
> What part of "Run the syslog daemon like you always did, if you need
> syslog files." did you not understand?
Well,
On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Kay Sievers wrote:
So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
What part of "Run the syslog daemon like you always did, if you need
syslog files." did you not understand?
Kay,
This is not an
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 02:37:05PM -0400, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> So, in other words, all our existing log analysis tools have to be
> modified if they are to be of any use in Fedora 18?
No, not in the even slightest. I don't think that's even up for discussion.
--
Matthew Miller ☁☁☁ Fe
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:37 PM, Konstantin Ryabitsev
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
> wrote:
>>> Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
>>
>> Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
>> is compatible with the journal. Not to my know
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:32 PM, Lennart Poettering
wrote:
>> Can journalctl send the logs via logwatch?
>
> Not sure I can parse this, but IIUC you are wondering whether logwatch
> is compatible with the journal. Not to my knowledge, no. But adding this
> should be fairly easy as the output of "j
On Wed, 10.10.12 10:12, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:54:28AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> > > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay
On Wed, 10.10.12 09:54, Richard W.M. Jones (rjo...@redhat.com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:50:43AM +0200, Björn Persson wrote:
> > Lennart Poettering wrote:
> > > On Tue, 09.10.12 09:09, Chris Adams (cmad...@hiwaay.net) wrote:
> > > > How do you read this log when the system is not running
1 - 100 of 312 matches
Mail list logo
