Thank you for the explanation Petr, it's very much appreciated.

I do have a problem with this patch and I'm inclined to NAK it, but I'm open to discussion. Here's my thoughts, if I've made mistakes in my reasoning please point them out.

The fundamental problem is many of our command line utilities do not do logging correctly.

Fixing the logging is not terribly difficult but it raises concerns over invasive changes at the last minute.

To address the problem we're going to introduce what can only be called a "hack" to compensate for the original deficiency. The hack is a bit obscure and convoluted (and I'm not sure entirely robust). It introduces enough complexity it's not obvious or easy to see what is going on. Code that obscures should be treated with skepticism and be justified by important needs. I'm also afraid what should really be a short term work-around will get ensconced in the code and never cleaned up, it will be duplicated, and used as an example of how things are supposed to work.

So my question is, "Is the output of the command line utilities so broken that it justifies introducing this?" and "Is this any less invasive than simply fixing the messages in the utilities cleanly and not introducing a hack?"

John Dennis <>

Looking to carve out IT costs?

Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to