replaced Logstash initscript with one tailored for Logstash-forwarder

[poolski]

This is a self-contained initscript for LSF. It assumes installation in /opt/logstash-forwarder/.

[igalic]

shouldn't we just use the one that logstashforwarder creates with pleaserun during its package creation?

[igalic]

i just realized that option indirectly exists, and is init_template == undef

[poolski]

I do agree that using the initscript generated with pleaserun is more flexible, but this can be a good alternative for when you are just using a binary deployed with Puppet instead of a package.

[electrical]

Hi,

The init script here is not used by default. we use the packaged init script supplied by LSF it self.
This init script was put in place before LSF had a decent init script in place :-)

[electrical]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[oloc]

In my opinion the best thing to do is to write a new template of the init script. Why ? Because we need to take care of the definition of some puppet arguments and transfer (sorry for my English) them to the init script.

Something like that :

name=logstash-forwarder
#name=<%= scope.lookupvar('logstashforwarder::lsf_name') %> # need PR #54
program=<%= @installpath %>/bin/$name
args=-config\ <%= @configdir %>/$name.conf

Therefore I pull request #56

[ghost]

Jenkins standing by to test this. If you aren't a maintainer, you can ignore this comment. Someone with commit access, please review this and clear it for Jenkins to run; then say 'jenkins, test it'.

[ghost]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?