Re: [gentoo-dev] why multilog?

[Bruce A. Locke]

Whoops... I'm sorry... I took another look and misunderstood what multilog
is doing here...  How difficult would it for me to stop using multilog and
use the "old style" logging for smb, etc with their own old fashioned
files under /var/log?


On Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:56:57 -0500
"Bruce A. Locke" <blocke@××××××.org> wrote:

>
> I've been playing around with the daemon tools package recently.
> Supervise is nice and would be handy in a server setting but I can't
> figure out why anyone would want multilog over a syslog or syslog
> replacement.  The resulting log files have to be filtered to be
readable,
> they are _not_ being put into /var/log with the syslog.d stuff, etc, the
> filenames are not very human readable, there are multiple processes
> involved (including the gluelog hack).  Seems like I'm loosing ease of
> use, the ability to forward logs, a standard log location, etc in
exchange
> for a poorly documented monstrocity :)  What is the advantages of
> multilog?  Perhaps I'm missing something :)
>
> Would it be possible to get a syslog USE keyword or equiv and have the
> supervise run scripts we create have support for it?  That way if the
use
> keyword is set then people can use syslog or a syslog replacement like
> syslog-ng and people who happen to like multilog can continue using it.
>
> Just a thought... any comments?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Bruce A. Locke
> blocke@××××××.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gentoo-dev mailing list
> gentoo-dev@××××××××××.org
> http://cvs.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce A. Locke
blocke@××××××.org