In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] (Harald Becker) wrote:
> *From:* Harald Becker <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected] > *CC:* [email protected], [email protected] > *Date:* Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:33:32 +0100 > > Hallo David! > > syslogd - can it be bent to my purpose in any way? > Why do you want do bent everything? Why don't you do/use the things > the > way it is intended? Thanks for the advice - I can see that it would work if the previous programmer had started out to use it on day one. I had seen the "system log" as something for Linux processes to use - not for user apps to add to. Maybe that is a false understanding. I have inherited a suite of programs, each of which runs as a process, which do not have the "tagname" built-into their progress or debug output messages. It will take me forever to go and find every printf in every source file ( or other output caused ) and try to tag it. I don't know if there may be things which the s/w does using system facilities like system( ls -l logdirectory ) where tagging each line may not be possible. I would prefer that the system logs the output from each of my 10+ processes in a separate file. That does have the advantage that if a process fails, but I don't notice for 24 hours ( these things are in a field in Peru. ) the file for that process will contain it's last dying words, they won't have been rotated away by it's verbose and still living, cousins. I think my preference is a valid point of view :-) D _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
