| Message ID | 20210130135203.159451-1-troglobit@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | package/sysklogd: proposal to update default syslog.conf | expand |
On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:52:02 +0100 Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> wrote: > I'm posting this as an RFC patch to see what you think about updating > the default syslog.conf for the sysklogd package to match upstream. > > The updated file changes the default log file from messages to syslog, > as is common on most modern systems today. The messages remains but > only for less critical messages. The update also adds more examples > for how to enable remote logging as well as different new log formats. Well, if the syslog.conf that we have in package/sysklogd/ is exactly the one contained in the sysklogd sources, then what is the point of having a copy in package/sysklogd/ ? We could just as well install the configuration file provided by upstream. Thomas
On Sun, Jan 31, 2021 at 23:13, Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2021 14:52:02 +0100 Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> wrote: >> The updated file changes the default log file from messages to syslog, >> as is common on most modern systems today. The messages remains but >> only for less critical messages. The update also adds more examples >> for how to enable remote logging as well as different new log formats. > Well, if the syslog.conf that we have in package/sysklogd/ is exactly > the one contained in the sysklogd sources, then what is the point of > having a copy in package/sysklogd/ ? We could just as well install the > configuration file provided by upstream. True, no point in having a local copy. My main question was if there was any specific reason to sticking with the old habits of only using /var/log/messages, as BusyBox syslogd does, or if every logging package is free to have its own defalts? Within reason, of course. I'm just a bit concerned with breaking peoples defaults, even though they can just provide their own. If it's OK to change for sysklogd, I can post a new patch that drops the locallay maintained .conf and instead installs the sysklogd one. Best regards /Joachim
On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:58:26 +0100 Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> wrote: > True, no point in having a local copy. > > My main question was if there was any specific reason to sticking with > the old habits of only using /var/log/messages, as BusyBox syslogd does, > or if every logging package is free to have its own defalts? Within > reason, of course. I'm just a bit concerned with breaking peoples > defaults, even though they can just provide their own. > > If it's OK to change for sysklogd, I can post a new patch that drops > the locallay maintained .conf and instead installs the sysklogd one. I don't have a strong opinion on what should be our default configuration for sysklogd. Peter, do you have any comments ? Thomas
>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> writes: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:58:26 +0100 > Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> wrote: >> True, no point in having a local copy. >> >> My main question was if there was any specific reason to sticking with >> the old habits of only using /var/log/messages, as BusyBox syslogd does, >> or if every logging package is free to have its own defalts? Within >> reason, of course. I'm just a bit concerned with breaking peoples >> defaults, even though they can just provide their own. >> >> If it's OK to change for sysklogd, I can post a new patch that drops >> the locallay maintained .conf and instead installs the sysklogd one. > I don't have a strong opinion on what should be our default > configuration for sysklogd. Peter, do you have any comments ? Not really. People can still use a custom configuration file in their rootfs overlay, so I don't have a problem with changing the default configuration to be more "normal", E.G. what upstream suggests.
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 10:43, Peter Korsgaard <peter@korsgaard.com> wrote: > "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni <thomas.petazzoni@bootlin.com> writes: > > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:58:26 +0100 > > Joachim Wiberg <troglobit@gmail.com> wrote: > >> My main question was if there was any specific reason to sticking with > >> the old habits of only using /var/log/messages, as BusyBox syslogd does, > >> or if every logging package is free to have its own defalts? Within > >> reason, of course. I'm just a bit concerned with breaking peoples > >> defaults, even though they can just provide their own. > >> > >> If it's OK to change for sysklogd, I can post a new patch that drops > >> the locallay maintained .conf and instead installs the sysklogd one. > > I don't have a strong opinion on what should be our default > > configuration for sysklogd. Peter, do you have any comments ? > Not really. People can still use a custom configuration file in their > rootfs overlay, so I don't have a problem with changing the default > configuration to be more "normal", E.G. what upstream suggests. All right, thank you so much to both of you for your time! I'll prepare a patch to drop the local syslog.conf and use the one shipped with sysklod. Best regards /Joachim