[Nut-upsdev] How verbose should NUT be by default?

[David C. Rankin]

On 1/9/23 10:56, Jim Klimov via Nut-upsdev wrote:
>    So here is a shout-out to other practitioners: should NUT programs print 
> their banner and other info (e.g. competing daemon instance was/wasn't found 
> and how that was determined) every time they start by default? Or should they 
> indeed be revised to talk less (and then settings and init-scripts in 
> packaging can be tweaked to retain current behavior should distros/users want 
> to)? Note that an alternative is to redirect to /dev/null the messages in 
> init-scripts and similar integrations instead.

Great work and great question Jim,

   The me the question is where the additional information gets written. The 
current terse line-power lost at ... and power returned at ... or shutdown 
commanded at ... has been the norm forever. That said, I wouldn't mind an 
additional line of journal entry or syslog including what was sent in the 
event a shutdown was commanded.

   Rather that worry about a change to the current output, why not add an 
additional option like --logshutdowncmd that would cause the additional output 
to be written to the syslog facility or journal as the case may be as well as 
output on terminals like the line-power messages.

   By having an additional option, there is no change to the current default 
behavior, but for those that want the additional info, a simple option is all 
that is needed.

   Glad to see the flurry of activity with NUT in the recent past. It is a 
wonderful package and well worth the development activity.

-- 
David C. Rankin, J.D.,P.E.