-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
The Friday 2007-01-19 at 23:37 -0600, Greg Wallace wrote:
> >> As a matter of fact, since it was a replacement,
> >> the installation process should have trashed it automatically, like it does
> >> for most packages that are becoming obsolete for that upgrade. For those
> >> doing clean installs this is a non-issue, but when upgrading you're pretty
> >> much relying on that upgrade process to handle these things.
... skip ...
> True enough. Since syslog-ng is basically a new improved version of syslogd
> it seemed that it would be only logical for the system to make that choice.
> But, as you say, some might not want to and it would be presumptuous for the
> system to make that assumption. And both can co-exist without any harm
> being done, allowing one to even switch back and forth between the two, if
> anyone would really want to do that. So, I stand corrected.
Yast upgrade can not simply replace one with the other because many admins
have customized the syslogd configuration, and translating it to an
equivalent syslog-ng configuration may not be trivial. So the decision is
left to the admin.
Yet, I agree, we should have been reminded by the install (by email to
root) to consider changing to the new syslog-ng. I also update my system
and discovered that possibility by chance or seeing it somewhere else.
- --
Cheers,
Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Made with pgp4pine 1.76
iD8DBQFFssJEtTMYHG2NR9URAjxAAJ9Mimu2G8T9Dquc/a87H5Bxu1+eQQCfbMZh
8rc/qELlElr5N/SDVpcM3mI=
=bi6z
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
