On Wed, Oct 24, 2018 at 11:51:07AM +0200, Evilham wrote: [cut]
> > I'll just add that when I use runit, I use svlogd. The main reason for > this being that it is guaranteed to just do the right thing with the > signals sent by sv and it is flexible enough. > > That being said, logger probably does work well; I just haven't given it > a shot :-). > > Basically: if I were to do this, I'd probably go with svlogd because it > feels more future-safe (packaged together, signal interactions > documented, thought to work with runit). > But also it is unlikely that logger changes too much to make it > incompatible with runit. If I could add my 2 cents, I would avoid to use a custom logger daemon like svlogd, for the simple reason that there is a standard to manage syslog events already, and a pretty flexible one, which works in any POSIX environment. And this standard is the syslogd protocol (whatever is the actual system log daemon you are using, i.e., rsyslogd, busybox-syslogd, syslog-ng, etc.). If runit needs to have stuff that does not/cannot call use the standard syslog() interface, then it's much better to stick with `logger(1)`, which can read from standard input and use the syslog() interface on behalf of its users. This way, you don't need to have both a system log daemon (that you will have around anyway) and svlogd just to manage those cases. Unless there is something specific that runit needs about svlogd and of which I am unaware (ignorance is bliss, sometimes ;)) My2Cents KatolaZ -- [ ~.,_ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ - Devuan -- Freaknet Medialab ] [ "+. katolaz [at] freaknet.org --- katolaz [at] yahoo.it ] [ @) http://kalos.mine.nu --- Devuan GNU + Linux User ] [ @@) http://maths.qmul.ac.uk/~vnicosia -- GPG: 0B5F062F ] [ (@@@) Twitter: @KatolaZ - skype: katolaz -- github: KatolaZ ]
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list Dng@lists.dyne.org https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
