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
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.
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.
Allan
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. :(
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.
Am 07.02.2011 10:54, schrieb Eric Bélanger:
FS#22089 - [syslog-ng] Please install config files in/etc/syslog-ng/ hierarchy
Does this mean I need to move my config file _again_? I remember this was in /etc/syslog-ng/, then moved to /etc/, and now it is moved back.
Can anyone please explain to me how this changing back and forth is justified? If pacman would behave better with moving config files, I wouldn't be bothered, but I need to move around my configuration manually each time this happens.
On 07/02/11 20:14, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 07.02.2011 10:54, schrieb Eric Bélanger:
FS#22089 - [syslog-ng] Please install config files in/etc/syslog-ng/ hierarchy
Does this mean I need to move my config file _again_? I remember this was in /etc/syslog-ng/, then moved to /etc/, and now it is moved back.
Can anyone please explain to me how this changing back and forth is justified? If pacman would behave better with moving config files, I wouldn't be bothered, but I need to move around my configuration manually each time this happens.
I'm not sure when/why the configuration file moved from /etc/syslog-ng/ previously. My recollection is that there was a single configuration file so using /etc/syslog-ng.conf probably made sense then.
However, if you look at the configuration files now, they really need moved back. /etc/modules.conf is just a really bad filename for a syslog-ng file...
On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:28 AM, Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org wrote:
On 07/02/11 20:14, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 07.02.2011 10:54, schrieb Eric Bélanger:
FS#22089 - [syslog-ng] Please install config files in /etc/syslog-ng/ hierarchy
Does this mean I need to move my config file _again_? I remember this was in /etc/syslog-ng/, then moved to /etc/, and now it is moved back.
Can anyone please explain to me how this changing back and forth is justified? If pacman would behave better with moving config files, I wouldn't be bothered, but I need to move around my configuration manually each time this happens.
I'm not sure when/why the configuration file moved from /etc/syslog-ng/ previously. My recollection is that there was a single configuration file so using /etc/syslog-ng.conf probably made sense then.
I checked an old package and it had a single config file: /etc/syslog-ng.conf so that's probably what happened.
However, if you look at the configuration files now, they really need moved back. /etc/modules.conf is just a really bad filename for a syslog-ng file...
Agree. Now we have several config files and there will be a patterndb.d directory that will need to be added. Better have all this stuff together in their own directory. I suppose the chance of going back to a single config file is very slim so it'll probably be the last time that these files will be moved. Also, all the other major distros I checked have the configs in /etc/syslog-ng/.
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. :(
Shouldn't we just close the bug report then? No reasons to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog seem to be standing out and no-one seem to be interested in investigating (and possibly implementing) this. Syslog-ng is still maintained upstream and the syslog-ng 3.2.2-1 package in core has fixed all the pending issues that were in the bug tracker. BTW, I just adopted syslog-ng so it has a maintainer now. Users who want to use rsyslog can easily install it from community repo. If there are no objections from now up to bug day, I'll go ahead and close the report as "Won't implement".
arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org