Bug#1084924: The system-log-daemon virtual package

On 08/11/2024 05:54, Ansgar 🙀 wrote:

> 1. What should decide whether system-wide logging facilities exist?
> Some central defaults or random packages (say foobard) shipping a
> daemon?

The package in question at the start of this Recommends: rsyslog | 
system-log-daemon

On a typical install, that will install a log daemon; but a user who 
wants more control can arrange that it not do so.

The maintainer is saying that "in all but unusual installations" a 
system-log-daemon would be found installed alongside hippotat-server.

That doesn't seem on the face of it to be an unreasonable thing for a 
maintainer to say; if it were wrong in the case of this particular 
package, then that would be a bug against that package.

> 1a. If not random packages, should policy be updated to recommend
> packages not doing that?

I don't think the question arises as phrased, because this is a 
Recommends: not a Depends:

Although, even then, it's not entirely clear to me that a package that 
would only work if there was a system-log-daemon available shouldn't 
Depends: upon it. Again, if in fact it would work just fine without, 
then that would be a bug against the particular package, but that 
doesn't mean that it's in principle wrong to depend on system-log-daemon.

To address Bastian's point in a follow-up to yours, policy currently 
contains the system-log-daemon virtual package "a daemon that provides a 
logging facility for other applications". In the past, people have 
understood this as a thing that they might reasonably declare 
dependencies upon, as well as a thing that they might Provides: and 
Conflicts:.

I.e., the historical understanding of the system-log-daemon virtual 
package was as an optional facility that might be needed on an 
installation, and that might be provided by a number of different packages.

As I understand the position of the systemd maintainers, they want to 
change the interpretation of the system-log-daemon package to being only 
something one can Provides: and/or Conflicts:. They want to change 
policy such that every Debian system can be assumed to have a logging 
facility available.

I'm not entirely clear on the problem with Sean's proposal 
(systemd-journald-is-syslog).

>> This seems like the wrong shape of solution to me; we've not
>> previously
>> assumed this,and I don't think the case for such a policy change has
>> yet been made.
> 
> Could I ask why the ctte considers this the wrong solution? As it was
> suggested previously, I assume it was at least taken into consideration
> in discussions.

To be clear, that is my position, not the committees.

Regards,

Matthew