Your message dated Fri, 11 Aug 2017 12:44:51 -0700
with message-id <>
and subject line Closing inactive Policy bugs
has caused the Debian Bug report #642914,
regarding [10.8 Log files] compression should be determined by good judgement
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact

Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact with problems
--- Begin Message ---
Package: debian-policy
Severity: normal

Most of the time I think that log files compression lowers the system
performance on desktop computers which have now enough disk space for storing
old logs.

I think that files compression is a good tradeoff only in case the compressed
files have a longer lifetime than the log files (i. e. man pages, fonts, Debian
packages, ...). For the other cases, the compression should result from good

The "nocompress" and "compress" options of logrotate configure 2 different
behaviours of logrotate.

If the log file isn't compressed,
logrotate will just rename it to something like 'log_file_name.log.1'
with quite no disk input/output.

If the log file is compressed,
logrotate will read the file (input from disk),
compress it (CPU and memory usage)
and rewrite the content into a new file (output to disk)
with a name like 'log_file_name.log.1.gz'.

Drawbacks of log files compression :
- increases disk input/output
- increases cpu and memory usage
- increases energy consumption
- slightly decreases the disk lifetime

The question is not about cpu and memory resources but mostly about energy

The energy consumption has drawbacks whatever the primary source is (nuke,
carbon based, solar, wind, ...).

-- System Information:
Debian Release: 6.0.2
  APT prefers stable-updates
  APT policy: (500, 'stable-updates'), (500, 'stable')
Architecture: amd64 (x86_64)

Kernel: Linux 2.6.32-5-amd64 (SMP w/1 CPU core)
Locale: LANG=fr_FR.UTF-8, LC_CTYPE=fr_FR.UTF-8 (charmap=UTF-8)
Shell: /bin/sh linked to /bin/dash

debian-policy depends on no packages.

debian-policy recommends no packages.

Versions of packages debian-policy suggests:
pn  doc-base                      <none>     (no description available)

-- no debconf information

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message ---
control: user
control: usertag -1 +obsolete
control: tag -1 +wontfix

Russ Allbery and I did a round of in-person bug triage at DebConf17 and
we are closing this bug as inactive.

The reasons for closing fall into the following categories, from most
frequent to least frequent:

- issue is appropriate for Policy, there is a consensus on how to fix
  the problem, but preparing the patch is very time-consuming and no-one
  has volunteered to do it, and we do not judge the issue to be
  important enough to keep an open bug around;

- issue is appropriate for Policy but there does not yet exist a
  consensus on what should change, and no recent discussion.  A fresh
  discussion might allow us to reach consensus, and the messages in the
  old bug are unlikely to help very much; or

- issue is not appropriate for Policy.

If you feel this bug is still relevant and want to restart the
discussion, you can re-open the bug.  However, please consider instead
opening a new bug with a message that summarises and condenses the
previous discussion, updates the report for the current state of Debian,
and makes clear exactly what you think should change.

A lot of these old bugs have long side tangents and numerous messages,
and that old discussion is not necessarily helpful for figuring out what
Debian Policy should say today.

Sean Whitton

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

--- End Message ---

Reply via email to