[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Changing the default syslogd (again...)

* Florian Weimer (fw@deneb.enyo.de) wrote:
> * Nathanael Nerode:
> > (2) Upstream status.
> > There hasn't been a new upstream for sysklogd since 2001.
> > All of the others are active upstream.
> Have you checked if SuSE's syslog-ng is heavily patched?  If it's
> mostly alright, it's probably a good indicator that syslog-ng is the
> way to go (and I assume that it can log to files larger than 2GB
> nowadays 8-).

Yeah, sure, except when the maintainer uploads a version of syslog-ng
that ends up puking all over itself in a most unpleasent way that causes
anything that logs to block.  That version was also in unstable for
quite a while.  I realize it's unstable but there are quite a few people
who use that and for whom it'd probably be less clear what had happened.
("Debian sucks, every morning I have to reboot because I can't log in!")

The version we currently have in unstable is 1.9.9 (which is a
development version), 2.0 hasn't been released yet and I'd be hesitant
to recommend 2.0 for the default right away.  It's possible we could
consider 2.0 for etch (assuming it comes out by then) but I really feel
it's not a good move to make that decision before it actually arrives
and gets quite a bit of testing.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: