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