Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] systemd syslogd
Hey William, On 06/21/2011 06:50 AM, William Douglas wrote: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net writes: In general I must say that I actually like the code (and the coding style) very much, so it's hard for me to say no to this. KUTGW, Lennart I understand your reasoning and, though I'm disappointed it doesn't look like this syslogd can make it into systemd, it will at least see some use in MeeGo. Also, thank you very much for looking through the code anyway! As this is probably the biggest hunk of C I've put together, I can use all the feedback I can get =). If you want a small logger, can't you just build busybox with only syslogd? /tmp/busybox-1.18.5$ ./busybox BusyBox v1.18.5 (2011-06-22 00:41:45 CEST) multi-call binary. Copyright (C) 1998-2009 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko and others. Licensed under GPLv2. See source distribution for full notice. Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]... or: busybox --list[-full] or: function [arguments]... BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a link to busybox for each function they wish to use and BusyBox will act like whatever it was invoked as. Currently defined functions: klogd, logger, logread, syslogd size: 29k stripped with make allnoconfig and the above enabled. ~Maarten ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] systemd syslogd
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Maarten Lankhorst m.b.lankho...@gmail.com wrote: Hey William, On 06/21/2011 06:50 AM, William Douglas wrote: Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net writes: In general I must say that I actually like the code (and the coding style) very much, so it's hard for me to say no to this. KUTGW, Lennart I understand your reasoning and, though I'm disappointed it doesn't look like this syslogd can make it into systemd, it will at least see some use in MeeGo. Also, thank you very much for looking through the code anyway! As this is probably the biggest hunk of C I've put together, I can use all the feedback I can get =). If you want a small logger, can't you just build busybox with only syslogd? /tmp/busybox-1.18.5$ ./busybox BusyBox v1.18.5 (2011-06-22 00:41:45 CEST) multi-call binary. Copyright (C) 1998-2009 Erik Andersen, Rob Landley, Denys Vlasenko and others. Licensed under GPLv2. See source distribution for full notice. Usage: busybox [function] [arguments]... or: busybox --list[-full] or: function [arguments]... BusyBox is a multi-call binary that combines many common Unix utilities into a single executable. Most people will create a link to busybox for each function they wish to use and BusyBox will act like whatever it was invoked as. Currently defined functions: klogd, logger, logread, syslogd size: 29k stripped with make allnoconfig and the above enabled. we're not doing busybox, it's a no-no for now in MeeGo. Auke ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] systemd syslogd
On Fri, 17.06.11 14:53, Bill Nottingham (nott...@redhat.com) wrote: William Douglas (william.r.doug...@gmail.com) said: For minimal distributions it is useful for systemd to have a syslogd as this avoids the need for extra packages (cron, rsyslog, syslog-ng, logrotate). My concern here is that this is the sort of thing that seems pretty clearly out of the general usage scope for systemd. Most all of the things that systemd includes are things that are useful on the majority of systemd systems, or are something that none of the existing versions are really best-of-breed yet (readahead). However, syslog daemons are all fairly well standardized, and I'm not sure we want to spend a lot of resources in systemd maintaining one. As such, if you really want a minimal syslog, it's probably best to handle as a separate project. (svlogd already exists, for example.) I agree with Bill here. I absolutely see benefit in introducing a new syslog implementation, however I am not convinced that systemd is the right place for it. There is a big number of features I'd like to see implemented in a syslog that currently are not available in any free implementation (such as SO_TIMESTAMP, SCM_CREDENTIALs, indexing, live view, unification of syslog, audit, utmp/wtmp, kmsg and numerous other things), however if we put all this together this will not be a small side project anymore but be big enough to stand on its own feet. Right now systemd is primarily an init system. The auxiliary components it includes are: a) relatively small AND b) really basic building blocks of an OS AND c) something where there is no point in a competing implementation/which will only be replaced in exceptional cases (but possibly disabled frequently) AND d) something we want people to standardize on. While a full syslogd would certainly qualify for b) I don't think it would qualify for a) -- if all the stuff I'd like to see would implemented; and neither c) -- since enterpresey stuff will always continue to use rsyslog or syslog-ng and rightly so; and neither d), for the same reasons. I think such a syslog daemon deserves its own project. We can of course closely align the two projects -- but have it systemd itself? I'd prefer not to. I absolutely see benefit in more competition in the syslog area, and in a syslog daemon that focusses on smaller devices and desktop systems, but I am not convinced this should be in systemd itself. I hope that's not too disappointing and I hope this won't stop you continuing to work on your project (and to ensure you do, I'll review your patch, in the hope that's helpful). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] systemd syslogd
Lennart Poettering lenn...@poettering.net writes: In general I must say that I actually like the code (and the coding style) very much, so it's hard for me to say no to this. KUTGW, Lennart I understand your reasoning and, though I'm disappointed it doesn't look like this syslogd can make it into systemd, it will at least see some use in MeeGo. Also, thank you very much for looking through the code anyway! As this is probably the biggest hunk of C I've put together, I can use all the feedback I can get =). -- William Douglas, Intel Open Source Technology Center ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
Re: [systemd-devel] [RFC] systemd syslogd
William Douglas (william.r.doug...@gmail.com) said: For minimal distributions it is useful for systemd to have a syslogd as this avoids the need for extra packages (cron, rsyslog, syslog-ng, logrotate). My concern here is that this is the sort of thing that seems pretty clearly out of the general usage scope for systemd. Most all of the things that systemd includes are things that are useful on the majority of systemd systems, or are something that none of the existing versions are really best-of-breed yet (readahead). However, syslog daemons are all fairly well standardized, and I'm not sure we want to spend a lot of resources in systemd maintaining one. As such, if you really want a minimal syslog, it's probably best to handle as a separate project. (svlogd already exists, for example.) Bill ___ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
