[arch-dev-public] rsyslog in core+base?

[Eric Bélanger]

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 6:53 AM, Thomas Bächler <thomas at 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".