[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Antw: Re: Coming in Pacemaker 2.0.0: /var/log/pacemaker/pacemaker.log

Adam Spiers aspiers at suse.com
Mon Jan 15 07:40:08 EST 2018

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>>> Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> schrieb:
>> 15.01.2018 11:23, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>>> Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com> schrieb:
>>>> 11.01.2018 18:39, Ken Gaillot wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> I thought one option aired at the summit to address this was
>>>>>>> /var/log/clusterlabs, but it's entirely possible my memory's
>>>>>>> playing
>>>>>>> tricks on me again.
>>>>> I don't remember that, but it sounds like a good choice. However we'd
>>>>> still have the same issue of needing a single package to own it.
>>>> In rpm world several packages may own a directory if it is consistently
>>>> marked as '%dir' in a filelist.
>>> Sure? I mean a package using a directory should include it as %dir, but what
>> if multiple packages use the same dir with different owners, maybe?
>> Then they will conflict.
>> I just rechecked, creating two dummy packages owning one directory. If
>> owner/mode matches, then packages are correctly installed and directory
>> is reported to be owned by both.
>> If there is mismatch, then rpm refuses to install.
>But for a general solution, do you think it's more clean to have the
>same directory with identical properties in multiple packages, or to
>have one package that owns that directory?

This question is somewhat redundant in the context of this upstream
mailing list, since each distribution will make that decision and
choose a packaging strategy consistent with their own policies.  The
important point was the previous one, which is that rpm would support
and handle these approaches correctly, so it's not of sufficient
concern per se to avoid /var/log/clusterlabs.  (I'm assuming that .deb
does too, although that should be checked.)

More information about the Users mailing list