On Wed, 11 Jul 2007, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2007-07-11T10:31:06, David Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If it is a transition exercise (staged migration across releases from one > > to another) temporarily requiring two locations, then wouldn't it be > > better to make the "old" location be a tiny script that produces a > > "warning: deprecated" message and then invokes the new one? (That's what > > Andrew and I have just done with the migrating "ocf-shellfuncs".) > > You do NOT want to log a warning for every log message logged. That > would go too far ;-)
Yes, I could see there might be a possibility to become interestingly recursive... But my earlier question still stands: Is there any reason for having it installed in two places? Can we simply decide on a single place? If that path is different from in earlier releases, does the change matter at all? (It couldn't really matter (could it?) if "ha_logger" is simply a detail internal to the main heartbeat distribution.) But if it is vaguely public (e.g. known by end-user RAs) then we ought to do something warning-like from the old, deprecated location to warn the user (even if is a warning-per-warning thing). -- : David Lee I.T. Service : : Senior Systems Programmer Computer Centre : : UNIX Team Leader Durham University : : South Road : : http://www.dur.ac.uk/t.d.lee/ Durham DH1 3LE : : Phone: +44 191 334 2752 U.K. : _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
