[bf1942] New build.

[Killing]

The problem with that is each OS has its quirks when it comes to syslog.
Also syslog is great for low output but for high volumes its pretty in efficient
not that it could be much better but its not good.
I agree in a perfect world it great but the fact is to make use of it, it would
need to log to a separate log file anyway to prevent stuff getting lost in
the clutter.

    Steve / K
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <g8 at the.whole.net>
To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
Sent: 06 January 2003 23:36
Subject: Re: [bf1942] New build.


> Hi Killing, why a bad idea?  It would allow for more granular control
> (facilities and levels), logging to a remote host, managing logs centrally
> (especially for those of us who already have syslog systems in place), not
> to mention it's a whole logging subsystem already built and ready to be
> used.
> 
> Yet another daemon output file would just be one more random logfile to
> manage.  However, the ideal world is to have both like many other daemons.
> 
> -g8
> 
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Killing wrote:
> 
> > Bad idea IMO configurable level to a file is fine thanks :D
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Scratch Monkey" <ScratchMonkey at SewingWitch.com>
> > To: <bf1942 at icculus.org>
> > Sent: 06 January 2003 22:33
> > Subject: Re: [bf1942] New build.
> >
> >
> > > --On Monday, January 06, 2003 5:18 PM -0500 g8 at the.whole.net wrote:
> > >
> > > > Having it talk to syslog(3) at its apropriate priorities would be really
> > > > nice (and all this output could be the LOG_DEBUG level).
> > >
> > > Good idea. Just need a way to specify the facility code.
>