2015-03-03 16:42 GMT+01:00 Thomas D. <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > quick update: Yes, the "problem" is related to util-linux which now > defaults > to rfc5424 [1]. > > I downgraded to util-linux-2.25.2 and the test is passing... > > The right "solution" seems to be to use "--rfc3164" for current util-linux > packages in the test until rsyslog does support rfc5424. > > Final question: Does the new default RFC5424 support in util-linux cause > any > harm to rsyslog because rsyslog is not RFC5424 ready like you (Rainer) > wrote > in your last mail or was it a misunderstanding (and it is just the test > which is expecting rfc3164 instead of rfc5424)? > > > [1] http://www.spinics.net/lists/util-linux-ng/msg09816.html > > I just saw this when I wanted to check on the format:
"Protocols are meaningful only when messages are sent to remote syslog server." MAybe the change in logger is not intentional (for the local socket)? Rainer > -Thomas > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > _______________________________________________ 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.
