ncm@zembu.com (Nathan Myers) writes:
> So now the question is, why did they write splogger? splogger parses
> the beginning of each message to assign a severity; if it finds "alert:"
> or "warning:" it assigns those, or "info" otherwise. To make splogger
> useful you have to know it's listening.
However, that answers Lamar's complaint about needing a way to control
the syslog level of messages. splogger might be more useful than logger
for our purposes --- even if we have to carry it along with us. What's
its license? A slight tweak of splogger to recognize our ERROR/FATAL/
DEBUG prefixes might be just the thing ...
>> (Curiously, the HP man pages do not say that syslog(3) or syslogd(1m)
>> conform to *any* standard ... hmm ... is logger more portable than
>> syslog?)
> The Linux page says just:
> HISTORY
> A syslog function call appeared in BSD 4.2.
> Normally if there's a standard they mention it.
Yes, the HP man pages also trace it to BSD. I'm surprised syslog
(apparently) hasn't made it into any formal standard.
regards, tom lane