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

Re: status of default syslog daemon for lenny

On 10/07/2008 Michael Biebl wrote:
> Jonas Meurer wrote:
>> Just wanted to bring up that topic again. I believe it's far to late for
>> changing the default syslog daemon for lenny to rsyslog, albeit I think
>> it would be really desirable.
>> According to http://wiki.debian.org/Rsyslog all preliminary tasks are
>> already done, so as far as I can see the only thing that still needs to
>> be done is changing priorities of sysklogd/klogd and rsyslog.
> Hi Jonas,
> hi release team,
> first of all, I have to say, that I think the rsyslog package is in  
> pretty good shape and I still think a switch to rsyslog as default  
> syslog is doable in time for lenny.
> As you can read from my former emails [1], I would have preferred, if  
> such a switch would have been done much earlier.
> From all the feedback and requests I get (from users and other DDs),  
> there seems to be a strong interest in rsyslog being the default syslog.
> So I'd like to ask the release team again on their opinion on this  
> matter and if they would acknowledge this change.
> If so, I'd forward the request to change the priorities to  
> ftpmaster@debian.org (unless someone from the ftpmaster team reads this  
> message and directly answers to it).
> If we want to have rsyslog as default syslog, the switch should be done  
> rsn imho. I wouldn't feel comfortable, if it was done just before  
> release (as Luk said, would be possible [2]), especially as I don't  
> know, if other changes are also required (e.g. to d-i, tasksel etc).
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/04/msg00069.html
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/04/msg00065.html

Forwarding the mail to debian-devel. Are there any objections by
developers against rsyslog as default syslog daemon?

Or do lenny release managers have any objections against doing that in
time for lenny?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: