On 2022-03-06 18:28:59 +0100, Peter J. Holzer wrote: > On 2022-03-05 16:25:38 +0000, Barry Scott wrote: > > Using the syslog() function means that any platform/distro details are > > hidden from the user of syslog() and as is the case of macOS it > > "just works". > > That doesn't seem to be case. Philip Bloom reported in > <CADoNktVgU9DBdBfc5wJe4vhJcTKrdVQjdeUO8eN=bvtw9g4...@mail.gmail.com>, > that syslog in Python 3.6 broke in OS X Monterey. So even using > syslog(3) doesn't seem to be safe across upgrades (no, I don't know > how Apple managed to break this - as I wrote, I don't use OS X). > > > > (I assume, not checked, that the write to the socket does not work > > because Apple is not implementing the syslog protocol from the RFC).
I noticed that RFC 5424 describes a very different protocol from RFC
3164 and was curious which one SysLogHandler implements.
Surprise: Neither.
It just sends the PRI part and the MSG part. While that neatly sidesteps
the question of which of the two incompatible header formats to use,
it's not a a valid syslog message in either format.
Obviously Linux accepts this format (the timestamp and the hostname are
kind of redundant anyway when you're using a unix socket).
I strongly suspect that the OS X syslog daemon got stricter and now
insists on properly formatted messages.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | Story must make more sense than reality.
|_|_) | |
| | | h...@hjp.at | -- Charles Stross, "Creative writing
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | challenge!"
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
