On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 08:50:48AM +, Richard Lewis wrote:
> thanks - agree logcheck should cope with a default rsyslog output. ... i
> just dont know what that default output is: does the below mean the
> subseconds are now always present?
>
> or: what regexp should logcheck use as prefix?
Am 27.02.24 um 09:50 schrieb Richard Lewis:
thanks - agree logcheck should cope with a default rsyslog output. ... i
just dont know what that default output is: does the below mean the
subseconds are now always present?
For locally generated messages, the time stamp includes subsecond
On Mon, 26 Feb 2024, 13:03 Michael Biebl, wrote:
> Hi
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:01:05 + Richard Lewis
> wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, 10:15 Ralf Schlatterbeck, wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I forgot to mention:
> > >
Hi
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024 19:01:05 + Richard Lewis
wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, 10:15 Ralf Schlatterbeck, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention:
> > There is an upstream (rsyslog) bug-report at
> >
On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 07:01:05PM +, Richard Lewis wrote:
> >
> > So I guess that logcheck should be prepared to receive both kinds of
> > timestamps, the 32-byte version and the 25-byte version (without the
> > subseconds timestamp).
>
> what is the default, and does logcheck cope with
On Thu, 22 Feb 2024, 10:15 Ralf Schlatterbeck, wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
> >
> > I forgot to mention:
> > There is an upstream (rsyslog) bug-report at
> > https://github.com/rsyslog/rsyslog/issues/5332
>
> Upstream has decided that it is not a
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:52:33PM +0100, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
>
> I forgot to mention:
> There is an upstream (rsyslog) bug-report at
> https://github.com/rsyslog/rsyslog/issues/5332
Upstream has decided that it is not a bug and that both timestamp
formats are valid RFC 3339 (I've checked,
On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 02:24:03PM +0100, Ralf Schlatterbeck wrote:
>
> Local log lines include the sub-seconds part like:
> 2024-02-16T22:05:52.315463+01:00 tux [...]
>
> while remote logs (in that case from virtual machines on the same host) do not
> include the sub-seconds part:
>
Package: logcheck
Version: 1.4.2
Severity: normal
Dear Maintainer,
rsyslogd currently produces two different timestamp formats at the start of a
log line with the default (now also Debian default) rfc3339 format.
Local log lines include the sub-seconds part like:
9 matches
Mail list logo
