is it as simple as taking the PR and changing the type name?
given that we don't have an existing name-value type, what backwards
compatibility broke?
David Lang
On Fri, 3 Mar 2023, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
note that I know I've seen patches go by for the name-value type, but I'm not
seeing it in the documentation at
https://www.liblognorm.com/files/manual/configuration.html#field-types
@rainer, have those patches not made it to a release?
IIRC no, because they broke backwards compatibility and no effort was
made to use a new type for that. IIRC ;-)
Rainer
_______________________________________________
rsyslog mailing list
https://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog
http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/
What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards
NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of
sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE
THAT.
