On 13.01.2011 21:20, Andre Zepezauer wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 17:58 +0100, Viktor TARASOV wrote:
>> On 13.01.2011 17:07, Andre Zepezauer wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> OpenSC as a library doesn't need it's own logging system. Such things
>>> are better placed at application level. If debugging is
On Thu, 2011-01-13 at 17:58 +0100, Viktor TARASOV wrote:
> On 13.01.2011 17:07, Andre Zepezauer wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > OpenSC as a library doesn't need it's own logging system. Such things
> > are better placed at application level. If debugging is necessary, then
> > 'export OPENSC_DEBUG=9' + p
On 13.01.2011 17:07, Andre Zepezauer wrote:
> Hello,
>
> OpenSC as a library doesn't need it's own logging system. Such things
> are better placed at application level. If debugging is necessary, then
> 'export OPENSC_DEBUG=9' + pkcs11-spy works for me.
>
> What would be the advantage of having log
Hello,
OpenSC as a library doesn't need it's own logging system. Such things
are better placed at application level. If debugging is necessary, then
'export OPENSC_DEBUG=9' + pkcs11-spy works for me.
What would be the advantage of having logs of different instances of
OpenSC intermixed in a singl
