Re: PROPOSAL: dpkg-logger and related
On Thu, Jan 07, 1999 at 05:38:42PM -0800, Joey Hess wrote:
> So you now have a complex structure with two different logger programs, one
> of which will only be used rarely so it won't get good testing, plus you
> have a rudimentry re-implmentation of syslog in dpkg-logger, plus you bother
> the user to let them know that the program can't accomplish something as
> simple as logging some data.
I'm not sure what your definition of complex is. One script of no more
than 10 real lines of code to redirect it's command args to stdout
doesn't require much testing.
The only implementation of syslog in the program would be to output to
a specific file with a timestamp in case syslog wasn't running. The main
reason for syslog being primary is the ability to send all this to a log
server and better configurability, as well as the fact that is already
the central tool for logging in the first place. All in all it would be
simple to remove the use of syslog period and have dpkg-logger not depend
on it at all, but that would defeat the purpose of having a syslog in the
first place.
--
----- -- - -------- --------- ---- ------- ----- - - --- --------
Ben Collins <b.m.collins@larc.nasa.gov> Debian GNU/Linux
UnixGroup Admin - Jordan Systems Inc. bcollins@debian.org
------ -- ----- - - ------- ------- -- The Choice of the GNU Generation
Reply to: