[Rpm-maint] Patch: Add support of syslog when installing/removing packages

seth vidal skvidal at fedoraproject.org
Fri Mar 4 14:12:17 UTC 2011


On Fri, 2011-03-04 at 08:59 +0100, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> * Panu Matilainen <pmatilai at laiskiainen.org> [Mar 04. 2011 08:34]:
> > On 03/04/2011 09:12 AM, Klaus Kaempf wrote:
> > >
> > >This still might not be sufficient to make the package non-ambiguous,
> > >as there's no guarantee that this is really firefox.
> > 
> > You mean as in "somebody might have made a package named firefox but
> > it's not coming from the vendor"?
> 
> Exactly.
> The name could be anything, the content (verified by the signature)
> crucial.
> 
> > >
> > >How about making the log line configurable with a format string ?
> > >
> > >Something similar to date(1), with the possibility to add additional
> > >package indentifiers like vendor, signature, etc.
> > 
> > Sure its possible and even easy technically to make it configurable,
> > it could be just a header query format string basically. OTOH if
> > it's configurable it makes it harder to have a parser for the log
> > messages as you dont know what format it might be in.
> 
> You're right, thats a problem.
> Its probably sufficient to limit the configuration options for the logging
> to 'simple' (just the operation + NEVRA) and 'extended' (operation,
> nevra, signature, ...), both with a defined format.
> 
> > 
> > Also if talking about enterprise scenarios, you'd probably want to
> > have any scriptlet failures etc logged too.
> > 
> 
> Yes, definitely. Any rpm operation which affects the system should be
> logged.
> 

Have you looked at what we keep in the yum history db and the yumdb?

Rather a lot of data for many of the reasons you mention above.

perhaps, too much data for rpm to have access to or be accountable for.

-sv




More information about the Rpm-maint mailing list