On Fri, 20 Sep 2013, Rainer Gerhards wrote:
On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 12:33 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
hmm, I tried to login to respond, and after putting in the
username/password in the web form, I then got a browser popup asking for
the site username/password, so something seems odd there.
I think it's worth clearly splitting v5 and earlier from the latest. Many
pages are split this way (referring to the legacy format), but it's not
always clear that that is required for 5.x and optional for the current
version. Occasionally I run into a page (although this may be google
finding the documentation experiment) that gives the new format, but not
the old.
I fear that when we put up the old version docs as well, this "google
problem" will likely happen even more often - and I would even bet that
from then on google will tend to serve the old style (as of Murphy's law
;)).
true, a single page with better clarification of the fact that the new stuff
doesn't work on 5.x and earlier is probably far better.
I think some of the confusion is due to the fact that you have to scroll down a
ways before you see any indication of the old stuff, and someone who just
upgraded to the latest version of their distro isn't thinking in terms of it
being 'legacy' :-)
if there's a way to automate it, having a note that for distros .... require
legacy format at the top of the pages could help (right now it's just about
every distro, but at some point it will change from RHEL to RHEL up to vX so you
need a way to change that list in one place and have every page updated)
that part of the problem is in the formatting. I'd write it that way
if ... then {
action()
stop
}
so that from the nesting the block is clearly visible.
tried that, didn't help
Besides, there is no
problem in using & ~ if it is just a simple filter.
actually, rsyslog outputs a bunch of warnings about this being depriciated
and when doing simple files and forwarding, the old style is MUCH easier
to read than the new style.
yup - that's why I constantly say it will stay AND be a preferred method of
doing simple things.
there are several places in the docs that say things along the lines of "you
should use the new style if at all possible". I know I saw it an hour or so ago,
but I'm not finding it right now :-(
you have the config optimizer, I wonder how hard it would be to have a
flag that would tell rsyslogd to read the config, optimize it, then output
what it sees as the config (using all the new syntax)? this would flatten
includes so that stuff wouldn't be hidden by them, and make debugging
easier as it would specify every value for every option (including the ones
that are defaults), no matter if they are listed in the old style or new
style format
It's quite a bit of work, as (contrary to the optimizer) all modules would
need to be updated (action & input parameters are only visible by the
module in question).
oh well, probably not worth a lot of work, although even doing a handful of the
most common modules would get a big return.
David Lang
_______________________________________________
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.
