|
Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing |
| Summary: | logfiles not owned by any package | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [openSUSE] openSUSE 10.3 | Reporter: | Lars Vogdt <lars.vogdt> |
| Component: | Other | Assignee: | Lars Vogdt <lars.vogdt> |
| Status: | RESOLVED INVALID | QA Contact: | E-mail List <qa-bugs> |
| Severity: | Minor | ||
| Priority: | P5 - None | CC: | dmueller, mls, ro |
| Version: | Alpha 4plus | ||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | openSUSE 10.3 | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Found By: | Development | Services Priority: | |
| Business Priority: | Blocker: | --- | |
| Marketing QA Status: | --- | IT Deployment: | --- |
| Bug Depends on: | 280462, 280463, 280464, 280465, 280466, 280467, 280469, 280470, 280474, 280475, 280502, 280503, 280506, 280507 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
"rpm -qc <<package>>" will report files as config files then. As a result, backup scripts (and scripts collecting config files for distribution upgrade) will then save the large logfiles too. Can we enhance rpm and introduce new filetype "%logfile(...)" please? (In reply to comment #1) > "rpm -qc <<package>>" will report files as config files then. > > As a result, backup scripts (and scripts collecting config files for > distribution upgrade) will then save the large logfiles too. > > Can we enhance rpm and introduce new filetype "%logfile(...)" please? Adding Michael as RPM Maintainer. Michael, what do you think about this enhancement? Do *not* mark logfiles as config files! It's perfectly fine when the logfile is deleted when the package gets removed. Package cups contains logfile /var/log/cups/page_log. This file contains the accounting information. I disagree that it is a good idea to remove this file in case of an package upgrade (installation/de-installation). What should be done here? The bug is invalid: log files do not belong to a package but to the system on which the package is installed. (In reply to comment #5 from Werner Fink) > The bug is invalid: log files do not belong to a package but to the > system on which the package is installed. I think, this is a philosophic question. For me the logfile belongs to the package as applications from this package create the logfile. But as discussed in the dist meeting, I close this as invalid for 10.3 and hopefully come back with a %logfile tag (or a much better solution) for the next distribution. |
We've currently many packages which produce logfiles but didn't own them. Some results: - security scanners inform users about file not owned by a package - some Logfiles differ from the name of the package, so the user has no chance to "guess" which package produces the logfile - possible of unknown file conflicts when a logfile is used by different packages - ... If no one insists, we should use the %ghost directive for this. To avoid deletion of the logfile if the RPM is deinstalled, it must be enhanced with the %config(noreplace,missingok) option. Example for the specfile: %install [...] %{__install} -d -m755 %buildroot%_var/log touch %buildroot%_var/log/<logfilename> [...] %files %ghost %config(noreplace,missingok) %_var/log/<logfilename>