[Buildroot] [PATCH v3 0/8] init scripts: rewrite S01logging

[Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com>]

Hello,

On Fri, 12 Oct 2018 08:50:49 -0300 (BRT), Carlos Santos wrote:

> > (1) Do we really want that Busybox, syslog-ng, rsyslog, sysklogd all
> >     install a file of the same name, S01logging ? Isn't this
> >     contradicting our goal of not having one package overwrite files
> >     installed by another package ?
> > 
> >     Wouldn't it make more sense to install S01syslog-ng, S01rsyslog,
> >     S01sysklogd ? This way, we also have a mapping between the init
> >     script name and the daemon/package being started ?  
> 
> I don't know why it was decided to use the same name for all packages.
> Looks like the original intention was to prevent multiple logging damons
> from running at the same time.

Yes, but why? If we go down this route, then all web servers should
install S50httpd, and not S50lighttpd, S50apache, etc. Dropbear and
OpenSSH should not install S50dropbear and S50sshd, etc.

> Perhaps we should add an item to the "System configuration" menu allowing
> the user to choose a logging provider, just like the "Init system" item,
> and convert rsyslog/sysklogd/syslog-ng to virtual packages.

I don't think we want to do that, because then we need to do this for
"what mail server do you want?", "what http server do you want?", "what
SSH server do you want?", etc.

If you enable two SSH servers, the second to start will fail. If you
enable two HTTP servers, the second to start will fail, etc. Similarly,
if you enable two logging daemons, it will not work nicely.

I don't think we should solve that problem, and just leave it up to the
user to do a configuration that makes sense. If you enable two SSH
servers or two logging daemons, your configuration doesn't make sense,
and it should be fixed.

> > (2) For the Busybox case, do we want to keep a single init script that
> >     starts both klogd and syslogd ? Or should we have one init script
> >     per daemon, so that again the init script name matches the daemon
> >     being started ? So S01klogd, S01syslogd ?  
> 
> There is also sysklogd, from which Busyox borrowed the code (or at least
> the idea) a long time ago. I think we should keep klogd and syslogd tied
> to each other, since klogd does not make much sense without syslogd.

Tied to each other doesn't necessarily mean they should be handled by a
common init script. busybox.mk can install S01klogd S02syslogd, and we
keep this one daemon == one init script logic ?

Otherwise, assuming we stop using the common S01logging name, what
would be the name of the init script installed by Busybox for its
logging daemons ?

Thomas
-- 
Thomas Petazzoni, CTO, Bootlin
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com