Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> Are there any arguments against using rsyslog in LFS?
>
> You may say "Sysklogd does it's job. So why changing something?" ...
>
> But then we could say "GRUB Legacy does it's job. So why upgrading to
> GRUB 2?", too.
Grub Legacy can't be built in a pure x86_64 system
Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
See http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/
On 07/07/10 08:23, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
>Are there any arguments against using rsyslog in LFS?
>
> You may say "Sysklogd does it's job. So why changing something?" ...
>
> But then we could say "GRUB Legacy does it's job. So why upgrading to
> GRUB 2?", too.
Except that grub legacy doesn't c
On Tuesday July 6 2010 02:09:27 pm Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
We
Are there any arguments against using rsyslog in LFS?
You may say "Sysklogd does it's job. So why changing something?" ...
But then we could say "GRUB Legacy does it's job. So why upgrading to
GRUB 2?", too.
In my opinion, LFS should be a modern and up-to-date distribution. But
the code of Sy
On Tuesday 06 July 2010 22:57:02 Stuart Stegall wrote:
> ...
>
> There are probably more, but I believe they rather universally
> rejected syslog-ng. (A few did switch from sysklogd to syslog-ng then
> to rsyslog.)
>
> Fedora has some rationale arguments against sy
On 7/6/2010 2:09 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
>
On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 1:09 PM, Sebastian Plotz wrote:
> What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
>
> - syslog-ng is under active development
> - sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
> - we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd
What about changing from Sysklogd to syslog-ng?
- syslog-ng is under active development
- sysklogd is quiet old (last version released in 2007)
- we just need to run one daemon (instead of syslogd and klogd)
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-dev
FAQ: http
Greg Schafer wrote:
> Indeed, but IMHO some of the Fedora rationale is questionable ie: "dead
> upstream" is not quite true. That is, if you can believe the sysklogd
> maintainer :-)
>
> http://lists.infodrom.org/infodrom-sysklogd/2007/0011.html
A new release has been made after 6 years. Shock!
Dan Nicholson wrote:
> I just read that Fedora has decided to take the plunge and replace
> sysklogd as their default syslog.
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FWN/Issue94#head-f55df1c4e39b27afc053b435a85088e5aec25a84
>
> Anyway, they've decided to use rsyslog since it maintains a compatible
> i
On 5/22/07, Greg Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> > Just to add to this, anduin has been running with syslog-ng from the
> > beginning and it has never had a problem.
>
> Here's a relevant post:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pi
On Wednesday 23 May 2007 01:36:02 Greg Schafer wrote:
> Here's a relevant post:
>
> http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-February/050643.html
But how much of that is still valid?
With the latest 2.x of syslog-ng, is it still asynchronous? Based my
experiences and o
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Just to add to this, anduin has been running with syslog-ng from the
> beginning and it has never had a problem.
Here's a relevant post:
http://linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-dev/2005-February/050643.html
But AFAICT the sysklogd maintainership hasn't
Justin R. Knierim wrote:
> Robert Connolly wrote:
>> Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load,
>> servers can't use it.
> I haven't had problems with either packages myself, syslog-ng was
> perfectly fine on my dedicateds. A
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load,
> servers can't use it.
I haven't had problems with either packages myself, syslog-ng was
perfectly fine on my dedicateds. Actually at work, we have 2000 shared
hosting se
Robert Connolly wrote:
> Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load,
> servers can't use it.
Sorry - dsa.physics.usu.ru (an old Pentium-166) logs every SYN and FIN
packet going through its NAT with iptables and syslog-ng, and works just
f
Which in my mind just says it's time to switch to syslog-ng and dump plain
> old syslog and klogd. Is there any real reason not to?
Syslog-ng was in the LFS book for a short time. It's terrible under load,
servers can't use it. And from what I read on google, it looks like sysl
On Monday 21 May 2007 16:08:02 Robert Connolly wrote:
> Changes to linux-2.6's printk, and possible other things, have broken
> klogd's EIP translation. There are no patches available to fix klogd.
Which in my mind just says it's time to switch to syslog-ng and dump plain
On Mon, Feb 21, 2005 at 08:34:35AM +, Steve Crosby wrote:
>
> That said, a system that has that large a syslog load is likely to have a
> dedicated syslog server, which should mitigate the problem mentioned.
It doesn't take that much load to hit problems, BTW. A mail server
(which should be
Hi guys,
Sorry about that syslog-ng thing slipping in last night. I honestly thought it
had been mentioned and sort of discussed already. I realize now that I
planned on doing so, but then I worked on the testing and unstable branches
and the discussion slipped my mind, but I was thinking all
I sent a couple patches for sysklogd not long ago. One was a diff against the
cvs version of sysklogd. There are several bug fixes in cvs and nothing that
seems very unstable, including some security related fixes. I suggest we use
a patch to upgrade to the cvs version. The diffs include:
+ . D
ut of LFS due to lack of maintainership, which, as pointed out
by Jim and Steve, is no longer the case. Syslog-ng, at the time, seemed
like a decent replacement, even with the need to incorporate the libol
library. Given the circumstances, my personal opinion is that LFS
should switch back as
Jeremy Utley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>
>>
>>This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog
>>daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to
>>replace it?
>>
>&g
The newer version of syslog-ng right now it's 1.9, soon to be 2.0 will
also have a change in dependencies.
glib2, and the replacement of libol, eventlog libraries.
That's one of the reasons for the change. The only other solution is to
give a choice in the book, but that's not
Jeremy Utley wrote:
Randy McMurchy wrote:
This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog
daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to
replace it?
Gerard's post came as a shock to me as well, so I took the opprotunity
to ask him about it on IRC
Randy McMurchy wrote:
This I don't understand. I thought syslog-ng was the new syslog
daemon of choice for LFS. If it goes away, what is destined to
replace it?
Gerard's post came as a shock to me as well, so I took the opprotunity
to ask him about it on IRC, since he happened to b
27 matches
Mail list logo
