Paul Smith wrote:
> Is there a reason for these restrictions that I don't see? Or is this
> just a use-case that has not been considered before? Is it a use-case
> that holds any interest for the sysklogd maintainers? Naively, it
> doesn't seem like it would be much of a problem to provide this
> flexibility.
>
I think these are just use-cases that have not been considered before,
but I'm no party in this. From the Fedora/Red Hat side of things, I've
had one request for making sysklogd listen on a different port but when
I asked for feedback it the reporter didn't respond.
Kind regards,
Jeroen van Meeuwen
-kanarip
Received on Thu Jan 22 2009 - 09:45:31 CET
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Thu Jan 22 2009 - 09:45:47 CET