On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 05:30:47 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > Guillem Jover wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-01-31 at 00:11:44 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote: > > > For 12.) and 28.), I'd file a wishlist bug providing a config file > > > snippet for /etc/rsyslog.d/ > > > > Can we please use /etc/syslog.d/ instead? this way we don't get locked > > in any specific implementation. I'm preparing a patch for > > inetutils-syslogd to support that, and it might also make sense to > > require all system-log-daemon providers to support that dir as well. > > I'd rather not do that. There is no common config file format, that all > sylog daemons understand. E.g. you can't mix syslog-ng configuration > with metalog or rsyslog. The additional functionality of rsyslog is > implemented via special directives, which other syslog daemons won't > understand. So, I don't think this is a good idea.
I've just checked a bit and sysklogd, inetutils-syslogd and rsyslog understand the standard syslog.conf format. rsyslog has additional directives, but IMO those should not be used by third party packages that would drop config snippets under /etc/syslog.d/. rsyslog could of course read configs from syslog.d and rsyslog.d, and admins could install those under /etc/rsyslog.d/ or edit /etc/rsyslog.conf to make use of those additional features. The only daemons not understanding the standard format are syslog-ng, socklog, and metalog (which is not even on the distro). My concern is making packages explicitely dependant on rsyslog, when they could be generic, making it difficult for admins to switch syslogd and also any future transition to another syslogd. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]