Review request: syslog-ng (syslog replacement daemon)

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 7 May 2005 19:13:33 +0100 (WEST), Jose Pedro Oliveira wrote:

> > On Sat, 7 May 2005 08:22:37 -0400 (EDT), Chris Ricker wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 7 May 2005, José Pedro Oliveira wrote:
> >>
> >> >   * Changes a file from another package
> >> >     (/etc/logrotate.d/syslog from the sysklogd rpm)
> >>
> >> I know people (with good reason!) try to avoid using alternatives, but
> >> isn't this a good case to use them?
> >
> > Unless we continue with discussion of the old "Fedora Alternatives"
> > concept, a package that changes a file from another package and even stops
> > Core's syslog service in its scriptlets, sounds very much like it's
> > unacceptable.
> 
> How do we re-open the "Fedora Alternatives"?
> 
> I really would like to see syslog-ng as an alternative to sysklogd, and
> unless there is an Fedora Alternative policy I will never see syslog-ng
> package approved (logrotate problem, stopping the syslogd daemon in
> %post scripts).  Marking syslog-ng as confliting with sysklogd doesn't
> solve the problem. People will have to remove sysklog with the --nodeps
> option before installing syslog-ng.
> 
> jpo
> 
> PS - Is there an archive of old "Fedora Alternatives" discussion?

There used to be a rough definition of "Fedora Alternatives" below the
definition of "Fedora Extras" on the fedora.redhat.com "Terminology"
page. It described a package class which would make it possible to replace
packages from Fedora Core with packages which offer similar
functionality. It has been decided to focus on Core and Extras. And Extras
must not conflict with Core.

I consider the syslog-ng package in its present form, with scriptlets
which stop Core's syslog and start (!) syslog-ng right after package
installation, a conflict with Core. Installation must not do that IMO.