also sprach da...@lang.hm <da...@lang.hm> [2011.02.01.2006 +0100]: > your distro may have something like this, but Ubuntu already does all > output directives through include files, so why not just replace > those include files?
Because it means I need to maintain them, rather than leave this job up to the package maintainer and use the defaults as much as possible. Debian (Ubuntu) has conffiles and all, making sure that my changes never get overwritten; but it's often worth to go a step further and make things even more parametrisable. The goal of every sysadmin should be to minimise the deviation from the distro default. > the problem with just running all filenames through a filter is that > you also want to change normal, fixed filenames to dynamic filenames. > this requires that the filename be evaluated for each log message as > opposed to just at open time. There is a significant performance hit > to doing this, one that people who don't use synamid filenames will > not want to pay. This is true. At the moment, you have a much lesser performance hit due to template evaluation. I would prefer an internal mangler to an external filter, so that the performance hit would be negligible over template evaluation. -- .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@d.o> Related projects: : :' : proud Debian developer http://debiansystem.info `. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck http://vcs-pkg.org `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems "the only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." -- oscar wilde
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/sig-policy/999bbcc4/current)
