On Mon, 22 Oct 2018 20:08:57 +0000
Daniel Abrecht <dng@???> wrote:

> On 22/10/2018 19.38, Steve Litt wrote:
> > Is logger just another sister of syslog-ng and rsyslog?
>
>
> logger does per default log to the system logger. That can be
> rsyslog, syslog-ng, or any other system syslog daemon, really (with
> the exception of journald, which does it's own thing.). This is why I
> think everything should log to the system logger, which can then
> still log everything to log files or to another server or anything
> else. logger is one of the few logging clients which even support
> rfc5424 and its structured data elements, so I quiet like it, but I
> think anything that can log to the syslog unix socket is fine.
>
> So, long story short, logger is a syslog client, while rsyslog,
> syslog-ng, etc. are logging daemons/servers.
>
> There is currently no c logging library with rfc5424 support I'm
> aware of (only rfc3164), while every logging daemon/server does
> support it, but thats a different and minor problem. (I really should
> write one and update my libjournal-shim)

Hi Daniel,

You were so thorough giving facts that I didn't understand your answer:
Would you recommend using logger to transfer daemon stderr (and
configurationally stdout) to the log files?

You appeared (to me) to say that logger does per default log to the
system logger, and (my interpretation but I know little) that system
logger could be either syslog-ng or rsyslog. If my two intrpretations
earlier this paragraph are true, I personally would draw the conclusion
that logger will write the logs regardless of whether the computer is
set up for syslog-ng, rsyslog, or some other log writer, and thus
logger would be the best and most widely compatible choice.

Do you agree that logger would be the best and most widely compatible
choice?

Thanks,

SteveT

Steve Litt
September 2018 featured book: Quit Joblessness: Start Your Own Business
http://www.troubleshooters.com/startbiz