From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Tue 28 Dec 2004 - 01:48:43 GMT
* Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:28:45PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Alright, then maybe a -legacy or some such package, or just a really
> > stern warning at the start of all the -legacy stuff saying "this is
> > legacy, you shouldn't be using it", or just don't distribute it at all
> > (my personal favorite).
> the thing is, many people have existing 2.4 vservers
> and want to see 'some' migration path, and telling them
> "sorry, you are out of luck" isn't the way we want to
> go there ... so the legacy stuff _is_ important ...
> having a separate package (as with rpm, see my list)
> is a good idea IMHO, because it allows to remove those
> tools once the legacy vservers have been converted
Perhaps, I just don't like releasing legacy tools. How difficult is it
to move to the new tools? Are the 'new' vservers the 2.6 ones, and the
'old' vservers the 2.4 ones, or can you have 'new' 2.4 vservers?
> > Well, syslog-ng, at least, works just fine in that role. Of course, if
> > the kernel is changed to provide a link that's just empty then anything
> > will work. So, I don't think util-vserver needs to or should care about
> > it.
> IMHO it would be a natural thing to _not_ mix syslogd
> and klogd into the same script/package, because they
> _are_ very different in purpose and functionality ...
syslogd and klogd are seperate packages already, the problem is that
klogd doesn't work and complains because it doesn't have proper
permissions. I think that's the main issue...
> one is directly talking to the kernel and receiving
> system wide (read host) information, while the other
> is a pure userspace daemon receiving just userspace
> messages ...
Sure, and they're seperate packages under Debian, just both installed by
default and some things depend on a linux-kernel-logger or whatever,
> so I really wonder why both ended up in the same script
> on most distros ...
Because they used to be distributed together... They're no longer in
the same init script or package on Debian.
> if this is the case in debian too (I read various
> diversive statements about that in irc and this ml)
> then this should be fixed in the distro (but I'm
> realistic enough that this will not happen soon if at
> all, so we might do another hack, like we do for the
> broken bind)
Perhaps in Debian/stable they're still as sysklogd but in
Debian/unstable (which is what we're talking about here anyway-
Debian/stable isn't going to change, if it even has util-vserver?)
they're definitely seperate packages now.
Vserver mailing list