On Thu, 11.12.14 17:16, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek (zbys...@in.waw.pl) wrote:
> > I agree with your findings, and basically thats how the zmq journal gateway > > works as > > well. And thanks to bring the "wait for network" up here, you would miss > > important > > boot log entries here. > > > > Would the upload tool learn a new URL for this purpose i.e. > > syslog://<ip>:514 ? > > Or a broadcast address, so no configuration is required. I'd really like to see broadcast delivery I must say. > > >> > Initial plan was to implement the most straighforward syslog > > >> > forwarding, > > >> > so only the MESSAGE field would be sent. > > >> > > >> it would be great to have at least the following format to send to > > >> syslog: > > >> > > >> "<%pri%>%protocol-version% %timestamp:::date-rfc3339% %HOSTNAME% > > >> %app-name% > > >> %procid% %msg%\n" > > >> > > >> described as rsyslog configuration. All the meta infos are there IMHO. > > > Yes. We just wouldn't go into "structured" syslog messages to carry other > > > fields. > > > > I agreed as well mapping then into the "struct syslog format" wold be a > > config > > pain I assume. However the one we listed above should be there > > ?!?!... > > That's rfc5424, right? Then yes. Is that RFC actually widely adopted? I'd stay as conservative as possible with all of this. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering, Red Hat _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
