From owner-freebsd-arch@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Feb 16 22:44:31 2008 Return-Path: Delivered-To: arch@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3260716A46B for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:31 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE48913C46A for ; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.61.3]) by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CDD717104; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m1GMiS6O013492; Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:29 GMT (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Michel Talon From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:22:30 +0100." <20080216222230.GA47480@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:28 +0000 Message-ID: <13491.1203201868@critter.freebsd.dk> Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fifolog - a circular file for embedded systems X-BeenThere: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion related to FreeBSD architecture List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:31 -0000 In message <20080216222230.GA47480@lpthe.jussieu.fr>, Michel Talon writes: >Bjoern A. Zeeb wrote: >> > I need it as a free standing facility in another contract, and that >> > got >> > me wondering if it should be included in FreeBSD as a general tool ? >> >> I think it's a very useful tool, especially for embedded systems and >> other installations with similar contraints, but I'd like to see it >> in ports rather than base (unless I am missing something and it >> depends on some special features of base that, when changing, >> could possible break it). > >One may argue that this facility is potentially useful for a straight >computer in case you want to strictly bound the size of logs in /var, >and as such should be a useful option in the base system. A contrario >i don't see what is gained by relegating it to ports. Quite generally >kernel modules in ports are more a hassle than anything else. First of all, this is not a kernel module, it is purely a userland thing. But yes, for a number of reasons, I personally lean towards the base system, as that would allow us to offer it as an option for syslog also on regular systems. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.