I'm fine with that :) -- Alejandro Guerrieri aguerri...@kannel.org
On 30/11/2010, at 14:58, Stipe Tolj wrote: > Am 30.11.2010 14:45, schrieb Alejandro Guerrieri: >> That's extremely unflexible imho. If you want to get kannel to log alone >> without being cluttered with other daemon's logs, you're out of luck. >> >> In our case, we'd like to use it for remote logging, so we'd use one of the >> "user" facilities to get kannel and _only_ kannel on it, directed to >> kannel-only log files. >> >> I don't see the problem on allowing the extra flexibility. It's definitely >> useful for our scenario at least. > > yep, agree... we keep the default as Alexander suggest as 'LOG_DAEMON' > facility, > but provide the capabilities to extend what we want. Right? > > Stipe > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------- > Kölner Landstrasse 419 > 40589 Düsseldorf, NRW, Germany > > tolj.org system architecture Kannel Software Foundation (KSF) > http://www.tolj.org/ http://www.kannel.org/ > > mailto:st_{at}_tolj.org mailto:stolj_{at}_kannel.org > ------------------------------------------------------------------- >
