> On 20 Apr 2018, at 09:52, Luca Toscano <toscano.l...@gmail.com> wrote: > 2018-04-20 16:27 GMT+02:00 Jim Riggs <jim...@riggs.me>: > > On 20 Apr 2018, at 08:53, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote: > > > > Sorry for coming in late, but what is the exact issue we are trying to > > solve again? My understanding was that if someone wanted something like > > > > ErrorLog "syslog-httpd.log" > > > > that the current implementation would, incorrectly, send the log data to > > syslogd. Is that right? > > Luca is working PR 62102 which has to do with "syslog:...:...", but that > unveiled an inconsistency between core.c and log.c. Before his proposed patch > in STATUS, core.c is doing a strcmp() for "syslog" whereas log.c is doing > strncasecmp(). We have been discussing standardizing both on strn?cmp(), but > that would potentially lead to "breaking" configs that use "SYSLOG" rather > than "syslog". > > > I don't believe that they two things are separate (core/log.c), since the > former checks for ErrorLog's parameter sanity and the latter sets it, so it > would be weird in my opinion if the two logic were different. This is why I > liked your consistency proposal Jim, and applied to my patch. In our docs we > clearly specify to use "syslog" in lowercase, so as far as I can see it using > "SYSLOG" would not be something that people should use..
Agreed, and I believe we should go forward with this. I just wanted to at least bring it up, since regressions and breaking existing configs has been a touchy subject lately. :-)
