2015-03-09 13:30 GMT+01:00 Thomas D. <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > wait... > > Rainer Gerhards wrote: > >> Thank you David. Now I understand what you meant with "hostname". > >> > >> That's something Rainer should answer. Maybe a new regression in logger? > >> > > No. You tell logger *explicitely to use rfc3164 format*. If you do so, > > logger simply thinks you really want that, and so it writes in rfc3164 > > format. Now, this format is not the format the normally is spoken on the > > log socket, and so the problem that you see appears. If you drop the > > --rfc3164 option, everything will work fine. > > If you are right that would mean that logger has *3* formats: > > - RFC3164, which is used when you specify "--rfc3164" option > > - RFC5424, which is used when you specify "--rfc5424" option > > - ???, which is used when you don't specify "--rfc3164" nor "--rfc5424" > option > > Are you really saying that? > > yes, since last week ;) The local log socket uses its own format. It essentially is rfc3164 minus the hostname.
> I would wonder because the help says > > > --rfc3164 use the obsolete BSD syslog protocol > > --rfc5424[=<snip>] use the syslog protocol (the default); > > you can't force the traditional format. If you read my intial altenate patch, you'd seen that i initially wanted to add an option to generate the local log socket format. But there is no need for this, as it is not to be used remotely and on the local log socket it is used by default. >From my understand there are only two formats: > > - RFC3164, which is used when you specify "--rfc3164" option. This was > the default format (i.e. used when you don't specify a format option) > until util-linux-2.26) > > - RFC5424, which is used when you specify "--rfc5424" option. This is > the *new* default format (i.e. used when no format was specified at all) > > > sorry to say that, but your understanding is wrong. > > But it seems like you are right: > > > # logger --stderr foo > > <13>Mar 9 13:22:11 root: foo > > > > # logger --stderr --rfc3164 foo > > <13>Mar 9 13:22:21 vm-gentoo-x64 root: foo > > > > # logger --stderr --rfc5424 foo > > <13>1 2015-03-09T13:22:48.163592+01:00 vm-gentoo-x64 root - [timeQuality > tzKnown="1" isSynced="1" syncAccuracy="235016"] foo > > > > # logger -V > > logger from util-linux 2.26.65-c9580 > > How is the first format named? > > I don't know of any "official" name. > Also I don't understand how you could propose > > > https://github.com/rgerhards/rsyslog/commit/de082e425f3f6d430eb136a2fb230d58b7e9580e > > How could you expect that this would work/be enough? I was simply wrong and had forgotten about that format. You'll notice that as soon as I begun to work on logger, things changed. I haven't reverted the patch to rsyslog yet, as I am not yet done. Rainer > It was the proposed > patch (and the help) why I thought that "RFC3164" was the format used > before util-linux-2.26... so if we fall back to RFC3164 everything > should work again but now it seems like that's wrong :/ > > I am currently very confused ;-) > > > -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.
