Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2008 22:44:28 +0000 From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Fifolog - a circular file for embedded systems Message-ID: <13491.1203201868@critter.freebsd.dk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Feb 2008 23:22:30 %2B0100." <20080216222230.GA47480@lpthe.jussieu.fr>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?13491.1203201868>