2016-11-22 18:14 GMT+01:00 David Lang <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 22 Nov 2016, Rainer Gerhards wrote: > >> The current packages are very granular. You don't gain much by >> re-packaging, at least this is what I think. If I am wrong, I am all >> ears, as it should be fairly easy to change that at least for the >> project-provided packages. > > > The reasons I'm thinking of a diffeent package are: > > 1. compile out everything possible (let it use the rsyslog packages if the > rsyslog package is included and the config is changed to need them)
I think most distros already split out the modules. See the various binary packages in Debian for example: https://tracker.debian.org/pkg/rsyslog So the core rsyslog package is already pretty lean (dependency and footprint wise) > 2. change the default config file to something other than /etc/rsyslog.conf > > 3. include a very different default config file > > 4. changed binary name (something like logsend instead of rsyslogd) > I had requests in the past in Debian, to split out the default logging rules into something like /etc/rsyslog.d/50-default.conf. The default /etc/rsyslog.conf would then mostly be about sourcing additional config from /etc/rsyslog.d/ -- Why is it that all of the instruments seeking intelligent life in the universe are pointed away from Earth? _______________________________________________ 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.
