On Feb 05 2020, Scott Kitterman <deb...@kitterman.com> wrote:
> On February 5, 2020 12:35:45 PM UTC, Ansgar <ans...@43-1.org> wrote:
>>On Wed, 2020-02-05 at 07:44 +0000, Scott Kitterman wrote:
>>> Do syslog facilities really have to be addressed by number rather
>>than name? That seems like a horrible interface.
>>
>>Currently yes. There is an upstream bug asking for a way to specify
>>them by name[1], but nobody implemented it yet.
>>
>>I think a `--facility` option should be fairly easy to implement. Just
>>adapt some code from the existing `--identifier` and `--priority`
>>options, there is already a method to translate facility names to
>>numbers (see calls to `log_facility_unshifted_from_string`).
>>
>>Ansgar
>>
>> [1]: https://github.com/systemd/systemd/issues/9716
>
> Thanks. That seems like a pretty basic feature.
>
> My impression so far is that the journalctl interface is a regression from
> what we have
> now in every way I care about.
I would venture that for every user who is grateful that
/var/log/mail.log collects all the various mail-related logs, there is
another user that curses about non being able to separate (out of the
box) the logs from all the programs that consider themselves
mail-related, and another user who struggles to remember in which
logfile $DIFFICULT_TO_CLASSIFY_PROGRAM might be writing its logs. The
former use-case is well served by having the current set of logfiles,
the latter will be much happier with being able to use journalctl.
So this doesn't strike me as a strong argument in either direction.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
