[arch-dev-public] syslog-ng package
Hi, Anyone want to spend some time cleaning up the syslog-ng package? Technically Aaron is the maintainer, but I have been updating it for the last few releases given he does not do much packaging lately. There are a few bugs open for it at the moment that I could blindly fix, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the package took a stab at it. Allan
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Allan McRae <allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Anyone want to spend some time cleaning up the syslog-ng package? Technically Aaron is the maintainer, but I have been updating it for the last few releases given he does not do much packaging lately. There are a few bugs open for it at the moment that I could blindly fix, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the package took a stab at it.
Allan
There is also a 2 year old feature request in the bugtracker to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog (currently in community repo): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314 Maybe it would be better if someone interested in that stuff would read the comments and relevant informations to get a list of pros and cons. So he could start a discussion about whether we should make the switch or not. If we decide to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog, then we would kill two birds with one stone by implementing the feature request and getting rid of the syslog-ng bug reports at the same time.
On 04/01/11 05:22, Eric Bélanger wrote:
On Sun, Jan 2, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Allan McRae<allan@archlinux.org> wrote:
Hi,
Anyone want to spend some time cleaning up the syslog-ng package? Technically Aaron is the maintainer, but I have been updating it for the last few releases given he does not do much packaging lately. There are a few bugs open for it at the moment that I could blindly fix, but it would be better if someone more familiar with the package took a stab at it.
Allan
There is also a 2 year old feature request in the bugtracker to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog (currently in community repo): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314
Maybe it would be better if someone interested in that stuff would read the comments and relevant informations to get a list of pros and cons. So he could start a discussion about whether we should make the switch or not. If we decide to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog, then we would kill two birds with one stone by implementing the feature request and getting rid of the syslog-ng bug reports at the same time.
Good point. Anyone want to take a look at syslog-ng vs rsyslog? FWIW, our friends over at Arch Server have taken the step of having rsyslog in their 'base' group. Allan
Am 06.01.2011 03:01, schrieb Allan McRae:
There is also a 2 year old feature request in the bugtracker to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog (currently in community repo): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314
There is a trend of implementing everything just because someone requests it. I have yet to see any good reason to switch away from syslog-ng as default. This is Arch. If you really think syslog-ng doesn't do it for you, just install rsyslogd. What does the default matter to you if you know better anyway? If you ask people, I bet you'll get as many votes for rsyslogd as for syslog-ng. You'll probably also get even more people saying they don't care.
Good point. Anyone want to take a look at syslog-ng vs rsyslog?
FWIW, our friends over at Arch Server have taken the step of having rsyslog in their 'base' group.
And why did they do this?
On 06/01/11 19:49, Thomas Bächler wrote:
Am 06.01.2011 03:01, schrieb Allan McRae:
There is also a 2 year old feature request in the bugtracker to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog (currently in community repo): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314
There is a trend of implementing everything just because someone requests it.
Obviously not a very big trend given this bug has sat there for two years...
I have yet to see any good reason to switch away from syslog-ng as default. This is Arch. If you really think syslog-ng doesn't do it for you, just install rsyslogd. What does the default matter to you if you know better anyway?
If you ask people, I bet you'll get as many votes for rsyslogd as for syslog-ng. You'll probably also get even more people saying they don't care.
Good point. Anyone want to take a look at syslog-ng vs rsyslog?
FWIW, our friends over at Arch Server have taken the step of having rsyslog in their 'base' group.
And why did they do this?
I'd assume it was because most other "server" distros are using that (or the old syslogd) so this would be the more familiar tool for people looking for a server distro. Anyway, the whole point of this thread is that we need a developer to maintain a system logging package. If whoever steps up to do that wants to use rsyslog over syslog-ng, then I would not object... Allan
On Jan 6, 2011, at 4:49 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas@archlinux.org> wrote:
Am 06.01.2011 03:01, schrieb Allan McRae:
There is also a 2 year old feature request in the bugtracker to replace syslog-ng by rsyslog (currently in community repo): https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/12314
There is a trend of implementing everything just because someone requests it. I have yet to see any good reason to switch away from syslog-ng as default. This is Arch. If you really think syslog-ng doesn't do it for you, just install rsyslogd. What does the default matter to you if you know better anyway?
If you ask people, I bet you'll get as many votes for rsyslogd as for syslog-ng. You'll probably also get even more people saying they don't care.
As the guy who was working through all this info and votes, I can confirm that Thomas is completely right. I did not find sufficient motivation for the switch after long consideration.
Good point. Anyone want to take a look at syslog-ng vs rsyslog?
FWIW, our friends over at Arch Server have taken the step of having rsyslog in their 'base' group.
And why did they do this?
participants (4)
-
Allan McRae
-
Eric Bélanger
-
paul＠mattal.com
-
Thomas Bächler