Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 11:03:41 -0800 From: "Crist J. Clark" <cjclark@reflexnet.net> To: Dag-Erling Smorgrav <des@ofug.org> Cc: FreeBSD-gnats-submit@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: bin/24444: syslogd(8) does not update hostname Message-ID: <20010119110341.A7958@rfx-216-196-73-168.users.reflex> In-Reply-To: <xzphf2v22vu.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>; from des@ofug.org on Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:32:53PM %2B0100 References: <200101190330.f0J3UPa75677@rfx-216-196-73-168.users.reflexcom.com> <xzphf2v22vu.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jan 19, 2001 at 12:32:53PM +0100, Dag-Erling Smorgrav wrote: > cjclark@reflexcom.com writes: > > I propose that syslogd(8) should reload the hostname with a > > SIGHUP. I cannot think of any reason that one should not update the > > hostname, but as I pointed out, there are reasons why one would want > > that behavior. > > It should also log a message if the hostname changes. Should that be a responsibility of syslogd(8) or hostname(1)? Personally, it might be a slippery slope to start adding things that syslogd(8) should maintain state on, but since syslogd(8) actually uses the hostname... One also could start arguing that syslogd(8) should check the hostname everytime it logs something despite the performance hit. As for what syslogd(8) does now, if you look at the example output in the PR, notice syslogd(8) didn't even log when it was HUP'ed. IMHO, I think it is beyond the scope of syslogd(8) to actually track changes in the hostname in real-time. Noticing a change when given a HUP signal, would seem reasonable, but if hostname(1) were to log changes, that would also be fairly redundant. -- Crist J. Clark cjclark@alum.mit.edu To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010119110341.A7958>