On 18.12.21 21:57, Roger Lynn wrote:
On 18/12/2021 15:00, Michael Biebl wrote:
I'm not a user of logwatch, so I don't know, if logwatch nowadays can
handle RFC 5424 timestamps, but even if so, I think the benefits
outweigh the potential breakage. And it's easy enough for users to
create a drop-i
On 18/12/2021 15:00, Michael Biebl wrote:
I'm not a user of logwatch, so I don't know, if logwatch nowadays can
handle RFC 5424 timestamps, but even if so, I think the benefits
outweigh the potential breakage. And it's easy enough for users to
create a drop-in config snippet with
$ActionFileDefa
On Sat, 2021-12-18 at 15:58 +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Am 23.11.21 um 23:53 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
> > On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 3:49:17 PM EST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> > > Michael Biebl writes:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > we are early in the bookworm release cycle, so I guess it's the
>
Am 23.11.21 um 23:53 schrieb Scott Kitterman:
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 3:49:17 PM EST Simon Josefsson wrote:
Michael Biebl writes:
Hi,
we are early in the bookworm release cycle, so I guess it's the
perfect time to bring up this topic.
Sorry for hijacking the thread, but perhaps now is
On Tuesday, November 23, 2021 3:49:17 PM EST Simon Josefsson wrote:
> Michael Biebl writes:
> > Hi,
> >
> > we are early in the bookworm release cycle, so I guess it's the
> > perfect time to bring up this topic.
>
> Sorry for hijacking the thread, but perhaps now is a good time to stop
> using
Michael Biebl writes:
> Hi,
>
> we are early in the bookworm release cycle, so I guess it's the
> perfect time to bring up this topic.
Sorry for hijacking the thread, but perhaps now is a good time to stop
using the legacy syslog time format and use the standardized RFC 5424
format? It is the d
Holger Levsen writes:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:57:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>> > Do you know of a tool that does what logcheck does, but operating
>> > directly on the journal? Logcheck is the only reason I still have
>> > rsyslog installed on the servers I maintain.
>
> same here, I use
Paul Wise writes:
> On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 17:57 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
>> Do you know of a tool that does what logcheck does, but operating
>> directly on the journal? Logcheck is the only reason I still have
>> rsyslog installed on the servers I maintain.
>
> https://github.com/cyberitsolu
On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 10:57:11AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> > Do you know of a tool that does what logcheck does, but operating
> > directly on the journal? Logcheck is the only reason I still have
> > rsyslog installed on the servers I maintain.
same here, I use (and tune) logcheck on all syste
On Tue, 2021-11-16 at 17:57 -0500, Zack Weinberg wrote:
> Do you know of a tool that does what logcheck does, but operating
> directly on the journal? Logcheck is the only reason I still have
> rsyslog installed on the servers I maintain.
There are some similar things:
journalctl --grep
https:
> I would thus like to proceed and change the priority of rsyslog from
> important to optional, which in turn would mean, it is no longer installed by
> default.
Do you know of a tool that does what logcheck does, but operating directly on
the journal? Logcheck is the only reason I still have
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 04:40:04PM -0500, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> I'm not sure if this a directly relevant question (apologies if it is
> not), but is there migration path to allow bringing legacy log data
> *into* the systemd journal[*] to allow for accessing log data through a
> single interf
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:43:48PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> On 13.11.21 22:40, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> > On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > >
> > > - Existing systems will continue to have rsyslog installed (but they can
> > > safely uninstall rsyslog)
> >
On 13.11.21 22:40, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
- Existing systems will continue to have rsyslog installed (but they can
safely uninstall rsyslog)
I'm not sure if this a directly relevant question (apologies if it is
not), but is the
On Sat, Nov 13, 2021 at 10:32:23PM +0100, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
> - Existing systems will continue to have rsyslog installed (but they can
> safely uninstall rsyslog)
>
I'm not sure if this a directly relevant question (apologies if it is
not), but is there migration path to allow bringing legac
15 matches
Mail list logo
