On Fri, 17.06.11 14:53, Bill Nottingham ([email protected]) wrote: > > William Douglas ([email protected]) said: > > For minimal distributions it is useful for systemd to have a > > syslogd as this avoids the need for extra packages > > (cron, rsyslog, syslog-ng, logrotate). > > My concern here is that this is the sort of thing that seems pretty > clearly out of the general usage scope for systemd. Most all of the > things that systemd includes are things that are useful on the majority > of systemd systems, or are something that none of the existing versions > are really best-of-breed yet (readahead). However, syslog daemons are > all fairly well standardized, and I'm not sure we want to spend a lot > of resources in systemd maintaining one. As such, if you really want a > minimal syslog, it's probably best to handle as a separate project. > (svlogd already exists, for example.)
I agree with Bill here. I absolutely see benefit in introducing a new syslog implementation, however I am not convinced that systemd is the right place for it. There is a big number of features I'd like to see implemented in a syslog that currently are not available in any free implementation (such as SO_TIMESTAMP, SCM_CREDENTIALs, indexing, live view, unification of syslog, audit, utmp/wtmp, kmsg and numerous other things), however if we put all this together this will not be a small side project anymore but be big enough to stand on its own feet. Right now systemd is primarily an init system. The auxiliary components it includes are: a) relatively small AND b) really basic building blocks of an OS AND c) something where there is no point in a competing implementation/which will only be replaced in exceptional cases (but possibly disabled frequently) AND d) something we want people to standardize on. While a full syslogd would certainly qualify for b) I don't think it would qualify for a) -- if all the stuff I'd like to see would implemented; and neither c) -- since enterpresey stuff will always continue to use rsyslog or syslog-ng and rightly so; and neither d), for the same reasons. I think such a syslog daemon deserves its own project. We can of course closely align the two projects -- but have it systemd itself? I'd prefer not to. I absolutely see benefit in more competition in the syslog area, and in a syslog daemon that focusses on smaller devices and desktop systems, but I am not convinced this should be in systemd itself. I hope that's not too disappointing and I hope this won't stop you continuing to work on your project (and to ensure you do, I'll review your patch, in the hope that's helpful). Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
