From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Mon May 15 21:09:23 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95275D6EE3C; Mon, 15 May 2017 21:09:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 717A28EC; Mon, 15 May 2017 21:09:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id 8AAAA403D; Mon, 15 May 2017 21:09:22 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:09:22 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Ian Lepore Cc: John Baldwin , src-committers , Warner Losh , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , Ngie Cooper , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , Ngie Cooper , "Rodney W. Grimes" Subject: Re: svn commit: r318250 - in head: etc etc/newsyslog.conf.d etc/syslog.d tools/build/mk Message-ID: <20170515210922.GA26702@FreeBSD.org> References: <201705131537.v4DFbgWV045290@pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net> <2229085.lB46rKsq7o@ralph.baldwin.cx> <1494870201.59865.103.camel@freebsd.org> <4703731.Pl02uSWy7k@ralph.baldwin.cx> <1494879113.59865.129.camel@freebsd.org> <20170515202853.GA88899@FreeBSD.org> <1494881370.59865.140.camel@freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1494881370.59865.140.camel@freebsd.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.7.1 (2016-10-04) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 15 May 2017 21:09:23 -0000 On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:49:30PM -0600, Ian Lepore wrote: > ... > You acknowledge that the situation is different for ports, so does that > mean your objections go away when base becomes packaged and faces the > same installation and update issues that packaged ports do? Because I > was under the impression that's coming pretty soon. The reason it is different for ports is because we cannot know up-front what software might user have installed and ergo what logs should be rotated by newsyslog(8). For the base, we know these pieces (albeit packaging the base could probably benefit from the same generic approach, if we ever start to support 3rd-party "base" packages). ./danfe