| 1 |
On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 13:05 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 01:47:49PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: |
| 3 |
> > On Tuesday 27 September 2005 01:29 pm, Chris Gianelloni wrote: |
| 4 |
> > > On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 11:57 -0500, Brian Harring wrote: |
| 5 |
> > > > I'd rather see reasons listed as to why syslog-ng is a superior |
| 6 |
> > > > default for users who (most likely) don't care, then "we lack |
| 7 |
> > > > /var/log/messages" :) |
| 8 |
> > > |
| 9 |
> > > Besides the /var/log/messages thing, which I think is a non-argument, |
| 10 |
> > > there is syslog-ng's ability to be usable by anyone. It works great for |
| 11 |
> > > servers, it works great for desktops. It works as a loghost. It works |
| 12 |
> > > for remote logging. Essentially, it has all of the features that users |
| 13 |
> > > would want. It also has all of the features that administrators would |
| 14 |
> > > want. It is flexible and powerful. |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > how exactly is this an argument for syslog ? metalog has all these features |
| 17 |
> > (and more) except for remote logging ... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> Additionally, metalog (afaik) won't be depending on glib, like |
| 20 |
> >=syslog-ng 1.9. |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Keep in mind I'm talking only defaults here (iow, use whatever is best |
| 23 |
> for your needs). |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> Re: it being a temporary change that should be undone, it's been |
| 26 |
> around long enough I won't call it 'temporary' at this point. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Merits vs "well, we recommend/did this a while back and were going to |
| 29 |
> reverse it" mainly. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
How about we just use sysklogd ? It does not depend on glib or any |
| 32 |
other package that would not be pulled in by default in system profile. |
| 33 |
It have a sane config. It logs to /var/log/message, etc. It supports |
| 34 |
network logging. Blah, blah ;p |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Martin Schlemmer |
Archives