the hostname, one being a syscall and the other being a sysctl. One
could of course have the kernel print a message to the console about
it, syslogd(8) would pick that up.
Yes, I was about to propose this, but then I thought: why? If we go this way,
then we should definitely also log an IP
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
"Crist J. Clark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:32:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It should also log a message if the hostname changes.
Should that be a responsibility of syslogd(8) or
"Crist J. Clark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
How about just logging a sethostname(3) call?
Still doesn't help. There are (at least) two different ways of setting
the hostname, one being a syscall and the other being a sysctl. One
could of course have the kernel print a message to the console
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose that syslogd(8) should reload the hostname with a
SIGHUP. I cannot think of any reason that one should not update the
hostname, but as I pointed out, there are reasons why one would want
that behavior.
It should also log a message if the hostname
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:32:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I propose that syslogd(8) should reload the hostname with a
SIGHUP. I cannot think of any reason that one should not update the
hostname, but as I pointed out, there are reasons why one would
"Crist J. Clark" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:32:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote:
It should also log a message if the hostname changes.
Should that be a responsibility of syslogd(8) or hostname(1)?
I meant syslogd(8), but putting it in hostname(1) might makes
