> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:rsyslog- > [email protected]] On Behalf Of David Lang > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 7:14 PM > To: rsyslog-users > Subject: Re: [rsyslog] Feedback Request: merge patch? (especially BSD users, > pls) > > On Wed, 20 Mar 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > > > Hi folks, > > > > I have a merge request[1] which I am a bit skeptic about. I have hoped > > the the original poster would come up with a better solution, but this > > does not happen. The patch intends to change facility names on BSD > > platforms. The end result will be that rsyslog.conf from different > > platforms will no longer be compatible. > > > > I tend to reject the patch for that reason (whoever uses rsyslog on > > BSD should probably update his config to the universal naming IMHO). > > > > Does anybody here think it would still be the right thing to merge that > patch? > > There has always been the problem that auth and security have been two > names for the same facility number. > > I think it would be good to have either name match when doing tests, on any > platform, because messages get forwarded from one platform to another > and people think in terms of names not numbers. > > If the only difference was what string shows up in templates, I would say to > go ahead and have it as a config option ($bsdfacilitynames=true). > > The problem is that doing this 'correctly' is a much more complicated patch, > especially to allow > > if $syslogfacility-text = 'auth' action > > and > > if $syslogfacility-text = 'security' action > > to do the same thing > That requires some (performance-impacting) changes and makes the code much more cluttered.
> If it does not allow the above special caseing, then things are much uglier, > and at most it should be $BSDnotRFCfacilitynames=true to indicate that this is > violating the RFC in favor of BSD historic actions. > > > By the way, I don't know what version they are dealing with, but what about > the removal of the BSD block configs as options, are they aware of that > change? Well, it was well-published. I have to admit that I still tend to object the change in its current form, as I still think it causes a lot of issues (plus nobody else ever complained about the situation). Rainer _______________________________________________ rsyslog mailing list http://lists.adiscon.net/mailman/listinfo/rsyslog http://www.rsyslog.com/professional-services/ What's up with rsyslog? Follow https://twitter.com/rgerhards NOTE WELL: This is a PUBLIC mailing list, posts are ARCHIVED by a myriad of sites beyond our control. PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE and DO NOT POST if you DON'T LIKE THAT.
