From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Peter Korsgaard Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2021 10:43:53 +0100 Subject: [Buildroot] [RFC PATCH 0/1] package/sysklogd: proposal to update default syslog.conf In-Reply-To: <20210201090431.48d3508e@windsurf.home> (Thomas Petazzoni's message of "Mon, 1 Feb 2021 09:04:31 +0100") References: <20210130135203.159451-1-troglobit@gmail.com> <20210131231346.6bce24e3@windsurf.home> <87sg6gg1d9.fsf@gmail.com> <20210201090431.48d3508e@windsurf.home> Message-ID: <87bld4p1gm.fsf@dell.be.48ers.dk> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: buildroot@busybox.net >>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Petazzoni writes: > On Sun, 31 Jan 2021 23:58:26 +0100 > Joachim Wiberg wrote: >> True, no point in having a local copy. >> >> My main question was if there was any specific reason to sticking with >> the old habits of only using /var/log/messages, as BusyBox syslogd does, >> or if every logging package is free to have its own defalts? Within >> reason, of course. I'm just a bit concerned with breaking peoples >> defaults, even though they can just provide their own. >> >> If it's OK to change for sysklogd, I can post a new patch that drops >> the locallay maintained .conf and instead installs the sysklogd one. > I don't have a strong opinion on what should be our default > configuration for sysklogd. Peter, do you have any comments ? Not really. People can still use a custom configuration file in their rootfs overlay, so I don't have a problem with changing the default configuration to be more "normal", E.G. what upstream suggests. -- Bye, Peter Korsgaard