Daniel Veillard wrote: [...] Morning Daniel,
My experience with systematic logging at command line level is that you end up polluting your file system with (hidden) log files, and while it may be fine for a developper it's not something you want to inflict to your customers. Also the fixed name for the log file makes it easilly useless, a random run in the same directory will just wipe out thedata you tried to collect in a separate process. I think having permanent systematic logging to a fixed file is notproper, I would rather not use that.
But since the patch is relatively simple based on existing virsh logging code, I think this could go as a command line option for virsh, for example --log filename where the detailed logs can then be saved if needed when a problem occurs. I think this would avoid the main drawbacks of your proposed patch.
Did you see my other response to this? https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2007-May/msg00256.htmlThat script, modified a bit further (see attachment) does logging fairly well. Having it invoked as a wrapper/replacement for virsh is just a matter of packaging.
Rich. -- Emerging Technologies, Red Hat - http://et.redhat.com/~rjones/ Registered Address: Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, United Kingdom. Registered in England and Wales under Company Registration No. 03798903
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature