On 09/06/2010 02:33 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
On Fri, 2010-09-03 at 16:47 +0200, Jiri Moskovcak wrote:
On 09/03/2010 04:28 PM, Denys Vlasenko wrote:
Unless the patch is trivial, there should be an explanation.
In this case, you need to explain why do you want to log to a separate file? Some people are used to having all their log in the syslog.
If there is a problem with ABRT it's much easier for user to send us one log file then grep it from syslog, but maybe some info should still go into syslog.
Many programs use syslog, for many years. This tells me it generally isn't such a bad idea - otherwise most people would use a separate log file.
We already can send the output to a separate file, no additional code required:
(abrtd -d 2>/var/log/abrtd.log) &
But if you absolutely want to have it in abrt, then at least make it an option, so that users have a choice how to run it, instead of being at developers' mercy.
The idea about his was to have a log from time when ABRT crashed so user doesn't have to run it with some parameter and try to reproduce it.
Something like this will be ok with me:
Usage: abrtd [-dsv] [-l FILE] [-t SEC]
Options: -d Do not daemonize -s Log to syslog even with -d -l FILE Log to FILE -t SEC Exit after SEC seconds of inactivity -v Verbose