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

[Adam Spiers]

Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote: 
>On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 12:40 +0000, Adam Spiers wrote: 
>>Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: 
>>>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.) 
>
>Distributions can be stricter than what the rpm command accepts. 
>
>E.g. Fedora package review guidelines (and thus RHEL and derivatives): 
>"Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other 
>packages." (with rare exceptions) 

Interesting, looks like that is a deviation from openSUSE.

>It makes my life easier to stick with /var/log/pacemaker :-) because I 
>don't have to coordinate with all the other projects on the 
>/var/log/cluster vs /var/log/clusterlabs question, and it will work on 
>all distros without modification. But if there's a strong sentiment for 
>a common log directory, we still have time to do it. 

I'm fine with whatever you think's best :-)