Jean McCormack wrote: > Dave Miner wrote: >> >>> The use of virtual console was considered as a possibility if a more >>> detailed progress >>> is required. Preliminary investigation indicates that this currently >>> is not in our microroot and would >>> be too large to include there. >>> >> >> Umm, please say more. We have long assumed that virtual consoles >> would be a core part of the product when they were ready to go, as >> they are on Linux distros, so I'm quite concerned about this. > So we are back to considering a more detailed progress reported using > the virtual console. >> >> BTW, it was somewhat implicit in the way you described it, but I'd >> feel better if the explicit statement of a single log was made. I >> would suggest that, if we're not using the SMF service log for this >> (and we should be explicit about why we aren't), then I would expect >> the location of the actual log to be recorded in the service log so >> that there's some way of locating it other than "just knowing". > OK. I'll make a more explicit statement that this log will be the only > log on the client.
Is the intent of the smf log file really to capture all log/error/debug info for everything that service could possibly run, or is it supposed to only capture log/error info for start/stop and other status from the service's method script? I always thought it was the latter. -ethan > I have a question or three. If we make the only log the smf service > log, will the users who have become used to looking in the standard > install log area be confused? Is this even an issue? If so, would > creating a sym link from the historical log file to the smf log file > be appropriate? > > Jean > > > > _______________________________________________ > caiman-discuss mailing list > caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
