Mailing List Archive

Hi Rainer,

> [.oops, forgotten to hit "send" - now a bit outdated, but still useful...]
>
> Hi RB,
>
> I really appreciate the spec file ... but it also creates a bit of a
> problem for me ;) Let me elaborate: I have stayed away from doing
> spec files, mostly because I can not ensure they are kept up to
> date. For that reason, nothing distro-specific is included in the
> "official source distribution".
>
> If I now include the spec, it may outdate over time plus people come
> and ask how to work with it, getting us probably down to distro-
> specific things. I am not sure we want this (or do we want it - I am
> open to change if there are folks in the community who can commit to
> support these things [aka "I can not" ;)].
>
> Or is there any other place where such things could be placed
> (external RPM repositories come to my mind)? I would be more than
> happy to link to the relevant places.
>
> Again, I really value the contribution, I just do not know how to
> handle it best.

My first introduction to rsyslog was via the Dries repository (now part of
RPMforge):

http://dries.ulyssis.org/rpm/packages/rsyslog/info.html

RPMforge have thousands of packages that are maintained for Red Hat based servers.

The problem is, I've asked both Dag and Dries for updated rsyslog versions for
months and they've never replied. I don't know why and they usually reply, but
sometimes they just don't.

This is why I build my own RPM's on my (and clients) server and why I made my
spec files available on the rsyslog wiki here:

http://wiki.rsyslog.com/index.php/Here_comes_the_first_story

I also provided them for download on my ftp server.

I have since made spec files for 3.18.0-1 but haven't updated since then,
primarily because of lack of time, and haven't updated the wiki with those
updated specs. However I am happy to do this if BR can give me his one, I'll
see if there's anything that's changed first thing.

The other to note, I rarely install anything from source into production
environments. I try to always leave things packaged or I make the specs and
package them myself.

rpm/deb/etc are just easier to manage, query, update, remove, verify, etc than
from source.

You're not of the minority when packaging for distributions, many developers
don't do it but at the same time, many developers also do. I know one
developer who uses another software package to take his source tarball and
create packages from it for all distro's (deb's, rpm's, tarp's, etc).

But I understand this isn't an argument of whether you should have packages or
not, after all Red Hat will eventually have rsyslog in RPM (but not for
updated versions from you, only what they release and backport fixes for).

So this really comes down to you not being able to so someone/some people just
have to stand up and take responsibility for packaging it. The user/admin
community definately wants it, a web search for the terms "rsyslog repo" or
"rsyslog rpm" will quickly show you this.

Regards,

Michael.

> Rainer
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rsyslog-bounces@lists.adiscon.com [mailto:rsyslog-
> > bounces@lists.adiscon.com] On Behalf Of RB
> > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:31 AM
> > To: rsyslog@lists.adiscon.com
> > Subject: [rsyslog] RPM spec file
> >
> > I was building a virtual host the other day and noticed only
> > rsyslog-2.0.0 is packaged for CentOS et. al. Needless to say, I was
> > rather disappointed and immediately whipped up something based on the
> > 2.0.0 specfile.
> >
> > Attached is a spec file for 3.21.4, but should be usable for most of
> > the 3.x series. YMMV, this has not been tested too terribly much.
> > I'd appreciate a callback if anyone uses it or has a problem - I've
> > done plenty of packaging, just not for RPM-based distros.
> >
> >
> > RB
> _______________________________________________
> rsyslog mailing list
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
------- End of Original Message -------

_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog

Hi Michael,

great post. Let us see where we come from here...

I know very well that people like to install from packages - actually, I
am one of them ;) So while I try do keep distro-agnostic (thanks RB for
the good words ;)), I would love to see rsyslog packages for all major
distros and and of course for all versions of rsyslog.

Unfortunately, both my knowledge and time is limited. Knowledge can be
expanded, but that takes time, so we are probably down to the "time
limit" problem - which is hard to overcome. I am not justifying me (why
should I?) nor bashing someone (again, why should I?;)) I am just
stating plain, unfortunate facts.

So I need to do a compromise. That currently is that I stay away from
distro-specific things, even in areas where I could join without making
rsyslog distro-specific. Thankfully, people like you, RB, Michael Biebl,
Infofarmer and some more whom I regrettably have not mentioned now join
in and help create great distro-specific things.

But ... sometimes these things are hard to find. The wiki was the first
approach to permit user-created context in an easy to spot and easy to
edit place. The wiki gets around 100 visitors each day and while this is
obviously not a big number, it is one that is constantly growing. So I
think the wiki was a good thing to have (which is also proven by the
fact that we attracted a number of articles).

The mailing list and forum are also good examples. I often do not need
to reply because someone of you did a much better job offering a
solution than I could have done. Excellent.

What is missing is a place to provide things like the rpm package RB
offered. Specific files and such. A quick solution could be that I
collect such material and place it, without any guarantee and whatsoever
support from me, onto the rsyslog download server and offer that
directory as a free resource to the community. That would at least
ensure that there is a single spot where things can be found by anyone
who searches.

Would this make sense? Any more ideas?

Thanks,
Rainer

On Tue, 2008-09-23 at 22:16 +1100, Michael Mansour wrote:
> Hi Rainer,
>
> > [.oops, forgotten to hit "send" - now a bit outdated, but still useful...]
> >
> > Hi RB,
> >
> > I really appreciate the spec file ... but it also creates a bit of a
> > problem for me ;) Let me elaborate: I have stayed away from doing
> > spec files, mostly because I can not ensure they are kept up to
> > date. For that reason, nothing distro-specific is included in the
> > "official source distribution".
> >
> > If I now include the spec, it may outdate over time plus people come
> > and ask how to work with it, getting us probably down to distro-
> > specific things. I am not sure we want this (or do we want it - I am
> > open to change if there are folks in the community who can commit to
> > support these things [aka "I can not" ;)].
> >
> > Or is there any other place where such things could be placed
> > (external RPM repositories come to my mind)? I would be more than
> > happy to link to the relevant places.
> >
> > Again, I really value the contribution, I just do not know how to
> > handle it best.
>
> My first introduction to rsyslog was via the Dries repository (now part of
> RPMforge):
>
> http://dries.ulyssis.org/rpm/packages/rsyslog/info.html
>
> RPMforge have thousands of packages that are maintained for Red Hat based servers.
>
> The problem is, I've asked both Dag and Dries for updated rsyslog versions for
> months and they've never replied. I don't know why and they usually reply, but
> sometimes they just don't.
>
> This is why I build my own RPM's on my (and clients) server and why I made my
> spec files available on the rsyslog wiki here:
>
> http://wiki.rsyslog.com/index.php/Here_comes_the_first_story
>
> I also provided them for download on my ftp server.
>
> I have since made spec files for 3.18.0-1 but haven't updated since then,
> primarily because of lack of time, and haven't updated the wiki with those
> updated specs. However I am happy to do this if BR can give me his one, I'll
> see if there's anything that's changed first thing.
>
> The other to note, I rarely install anything from source into production
> environments. I try to always leave things packaged or I make the specs and
> package them myself.
>
> rpm/deb/etc are just easier to manage, query, update, remove, verify, etc than
> from source.
>
> You're not of the minority when packaging for distributions, many developers
> don't do it but at the same time, many developers also do. I know one
> developer who uses another software package to take his source tarball and
> create packages from it for all distro's (deb's, rpm's, tarp's, etc).
>
> But I understand this isn't an argument of whether you should have packages or
> not, after all Red Hat will eventually have rsyslog in RPM (but not for
> updated versions from you, only what they release and backport fixes for).
>
> So this really comes down to you not being able to so someone/some people just
> have to stand up and take responsibility for packaging it. The user/admin
> community definately wants it, a web search for the terms "rsyslog repo" or
> "rsyslog rpm" will quickly show you this.
>
> Regards,
>
> Michael.
>
> > Rainer
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: rsyslog-bounces@lists.adiscon.com [mailto:rsyslog-
> > > bounces@lists.adiscon.com] On Behalf Of RB
> > > Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2008 5:31 AM
> > > To: rsyslog@lists.adiscon.com
> > > Subject: [rsyslog] RPM spec file
> > >
> > > I was building a virtual host the other day and noticed only
> > > rsyslog-2.0.0 is packaged for CentOS et. al. Needless to say, I was
> > > rather disappointed and immediately whipped up something based on the
> > > 2.0.0 specfile.
> > >
> > > Attached is a spec file for 3.21.4, but should be usable for most of
> > > the 3.x series. YMMV, this has not been tested too terribly much.
> > > I'd appreciate a callback if anyone uses it or has a problem - I've
> > > done plenty of packaging, just not for RPM-based distros.
> > >
> > >
> > > RB
> > _______________________________________________
> > rsyslog mailing list
> > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> rsyslog mailing list
> http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog

_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog

> What is missing is a place to provide things like the rpm package RB
> offered. Specific files and such. A quick solution could be that I
> collect such material and place it, without any guarantee and whatsoever
> support from me, onto the rsyslog download server and offer that
> directory as a free resource to the community. That would at least
> ensure that there is a single spot where things can be found by anyone
> who searches.

Sounds like you need a contrib/ directory, either on your download
server or included in the releases (or both - releases could include a
snapshot). Linking them from explanatory pages in the wiki will only
serve to help search ranks and generally make everyone happy. They
should come with (as you said) a disclaimer that best-effort support
may be had on the lists/forums, but that they are unofficial and
therefore not warranted or supported directly by Adiscon.

An alternative would be to allow specific users to upload attachments
to the wiki and link them from a semi-protected page; not as efficient
or as easy to moderate/aggregate, but it would certainly be more
instantaneous. The 'maintainer' of the given file should additionally
link to instructions on using the package.

Once a sane package is created, most packaging systems make scripted
updates rather easy - use sed to update version numbers/checksums, and
it's good to go. Gentoo's so easy, all you have to do is re-name the
package file. Only when major functionality changes (added binaries,
configuration options, etc.) should one have to non-trivially touch
the package. On that note, the spec file I provided only covers
limited rsyslog functionality - GSSAPI, rfc3195, RELP, and the
debugging tools were all left off simply because I didn't have the
time to build/package their prerequisites.

One last bit: coming from the Gentoo mentality, I'm less interested in
binary packages and far more in the meta-files used to generate those.
Others may differ, but that may help the bitrot concern.
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008, RB wrote:

>> What is missing is a place to provide things like the rpm package RB
>> offered. Specific files and such. A quick solution could be that I
>> collect such material and place it, without any guarantee and whatsoever
>> support from me, onto the rsyslog download server and offer that
>> directory as a free resource to the community. That would at least
>> ensure that there is a single spot where things can be found by anyone
>> who searches.
>
> Sounds like you need a contrib/ directory, either on your download
> server or included in the releases (or both - releases could include a
> snapshot). Linking them from explanatory pages in the wiki will only
> serve to help search ranks and generally make everyone happy. They
> should come with (as you said) a disclaimer that best-effort support
> may be had on the lists/forums, but that they are unofficial and
> therefore not warranted or supported directly by Adiscon.
>
> An alternative would be to allow specific users to upload attachments
> to the wiki and link them from a semi-protected page; not as efficient
> or as easy to moderate/aggregate, but it would certainly be more
> instantaneous. The 'maintainer' of the given file should additionally
> link to instructions on using the package.
>
> Once a sane package is created, most packaging systems make scripted
> updates rather easy - use sed to update version numbers/checksums, and
> it's good to go. Gentoo's so easy, all you have to do is re-name the
> package file. Only when major functionality changes (added binaries,
> configuration options, etc.) should one have to non-trivially touch
> the package. On that note, the spec file I provided only covers
> limited rsyslog functionality - GSSAPI, rfc3195, RELP, and the
> debugging tools were all left off simply because I didn't have the
> time to build/package their prerequisites.
>
> One last bit: coming from the Gentoo mentality, I'm less interested in
> binary packages and far more in the meta-files used to generate those.
> Others may differ, but that may help the bitrot concern.

I've been using checkinstall to make the packages as I compile them.

it would be handy if rsyslog could include the spec files that it would
use to create the appropriate packages, but I can understand the
reluctance to go there.

but if the dependancies are well documented, then creating the appropriate
file would be pretty easy.

David Lang
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog