On 22/10/2018 21:59, Steve Litt wrote:
> 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?
>>
Snip [Edited for brevity]
>
> 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?
In my experience yes, absolutely, suitable for both enterprise and
embedded systems. Your interpretation is correct (logger can do more).
But there is one caveat where there is a gaping hole in my knowledge.

Having logging working at the earliest point in the boot process is a
very desirable attribute. Potentially even before all file systems have
been mounted (the kernel uses a cache buffer so pre-file system log info
is not lost).

Does 'runit' have its own built-in method for passing information to the
system logs ? If it does I would not immediately rule that out in favour
of 'logger', especially if it caches. I will have to set a devuan (VM as
I lack hardware) test system up and research further before I can answer.

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