On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 05:18:58PM +0100, Lennart Poettering wrote: > 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. Ooops, sorry, wrong RFC. I think 3164 is the right one.
Zbyszek _______________________________________________ systemd-devel mailing list systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
