[Pkg-samba-maint] Bug#422968: is logrotate really necessary to run the package?

[Ivan Shmakov]

>>>>> "SL" == Steve Langasek <vorlon at debian.org> writes:

[...]

 >> Is the dependency on `logrotate' really necessary?

 SL> Yes; packages should not facilitate users to shoot themselves in
 SL> the foot by filling up the logging partition.

	No system is foolproof since fools are so clever.  There're a
	plenty of ways to end with a filled up /var/log/ with logrotate
	installed, ain't there?

 >> Couldn't it be put into `Recommends:' field instead?  It will allow
 >> users to use different programs to rotate the logs without the need
 >> to install `logrotate' just to satisfy the dependency.

 SL> Users can use whatever they want to rotate the logs, with or
 SL> without the dependency, by editing the logrotate config files and
 SL> configuring their own log rotation program.  But logrotate is
 SL> Priority: important,

	Doesn't it mean that D-I will probably install it anyway?
	(Hadn't used D-I for a few years; may be wrong.)

 SL> is lightweight (/usr/sbin/logrotate weighs in at 40k on i386, which
 SL> is less than, say, /bin/sed), and is the standard log rotation
 SL> mechanism in Debian (including documentation in Debian policy).

	Debian policy, AIUI, requires a package to supply an adequate
	logrotate.d/ file.  It doesn't state anything with respect to
	this matter about the contents of a `control' file.

[...]

 SL> There are 20 packages in sid which recommend logrotate -- but there
 SL> are 52 packages in sid that depend on it.

	There're a few which `Suggest' it, too.

	And there're some packages (in etch, at least) which provide
	logrotate.d/ files, but don't mention `logrotate' as a
	dependency at all.  Among others:

apache2-common
dpkg
exim4-base
ppp
xdm

	Under some load, either of `apache2-common' or `exim4-base'
	could fill up /var/log/ rather quickly, I guess.

 SL> If you think the majority of packages are wrong in their handling
 SL> of logrotate, please discuss this on debian-devel

	Well, looks like it had to be discussed.  I've found a rather
	old conversation in the archive:

http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2000/07/msg00108.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-mentors/2000/07/msg00110.html

	But it doesn't make the matter any clearer to me.

 SL> and get a consensus for such a change, rather than asking
 SL> individual packages to change to accommodate your singular
 SL> preference.

	I guess, installing some dummy-logrotate package with
	``Provides: logrotate'' in `control' will suffice for a
	temporary solution?