Hi all, thanks for the (on- and off-list) feedback. I count silence as agreement. So I will try to follow the advise down here. I'll change back to a single tarball, most probably with the next release.
Rainer > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:rsyslog- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Pantyukhin > Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2007 10:38 AM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] rsyslog 1.19.8 released > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2007 at 07:41:22PM +0200, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > Is this the overall consensus on this list? If so, I'll revert > > the change in the next release. So if you don't like this, > > please comment now. > > In source-based systems (like BSD ports, Gentoo Portage and many > others), it is a lot more logical two have separate tarballs, but > they have to be self-sufficient. The current ommysql tarball > should only need whatever rsyslog core installs to be built and > used. It should not require the core tarball. > > If that's too difficult, it's OK to ship a single tarball with an > opportunity to build just the plugin (just ommysql as opposed to > rsyslog+ommysql). > > If that's also difficult, the old behavior is OK, where a single > tarball can build either rsyslog or rsyslog+ommysql. From a > packager's point of view, the current (transitional?) behavior > does not add anything but a minor headache. I had to disable > mysql support in the FreeBSD port temporarily because I didn't > have time to arrange for it to be built properly in 1.19.8. > > Thanks! > _______________________________________________ > rsyslog mailing list > http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
