Aparently I stand corrected. Apologies and thanks for your patience. > > What do you mean by "its present state." And if syslogd is lacking, > would it not, perhaps, be better to try to extend it?
As I said, I am not opposed to using syslogd and think starting there is a good idea. If you believe it is feasible without causing recursive RPC calls, I'll believe you. My only concern was that if, say, 'pfinet' needed to log something and syslog were configured to write to UDP ports, pfinet would have to write to a UDP port causing perhaps a recursive loop of log calls. I realize that this is ultimately a pathological case, but it's worth considering. > > The second point is that many of the hurd translators do not use > > syslog (perhaps out of concern for the issues I raise above). > > If you look at the TODO list, you will see: > > * syslogify everything ! I missed that. Apologies. Anything I can do to help? Do you take volunteers, or have I proven myself unworthy by reason of ignorance. Jonathan S. Arney Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Bug-hurd mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
