On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 26.01.2011 23:34, schrieb Allan McRae:
On 27/01/11 07:39, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 26.01.2011 21:34, schrieb Thomas Bächler:
Please have a look at [1], especially the summary in comment [2]. I'd like to know if anyone wants to maintain rsyslog in core as the new default. We would not add replaces= and move syslog-ng to extra, so this will only affect fresh installations.
Anyone interested?
[1] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314 [2] https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314#comment71370
Okay, there is another comment from a syslog-ng-affiliated guy, which makes me re-reconsider. I'd really like some input on this.
The arguments for and against both of these will get us nowhere in making a decision. They are both good system loggers and obviously there is relatively little to make one stand out over the other.
So I vote for including whichever one that an active developer puts their hand up to maintain... At the moment, we do not have one for either package that I know of.
On the bugtracker, people still argue for and against syslog-ng. I am inclined to say we shouldn't take action here and leave syslog-ng where it is. It should be maintained though. :(
As it seem that syslog-ng will be kept in the repo (at least for the short term), I'll pushed an updated syslog-ng in testing in the upcoming days. It will have these changes: - upstream update to 3.2.2 - fixes for: FS#22269 - [syslog-ng] Incorrect & duplicate entries /etc/syslog-ng.conf FS#22153 - [syslog-ng] create /dev/log as a unix-dgram socket instead of stream FS#22089 - [syslog-ng] Please install config files in /etc/syslog-ng/ hierarchy The package is already done and is running on my system. I'll check if everything is fine in the next day or two before putting it in testing.