Re: [PATCH] Cosmetic changes to boot-up sequences

Khan Klatt (
Sun, 14 Jul 1996 22:03:53 -0700 (PDT)

You write:
>Along these lines, are there any plans to impose a more global logging
>format? Something akin to Dogital Unix's UERF utility? I'm not
>necessarily advocating one, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has
>looked at it and/or is interested.

Funny you mention this... I was JUST thinking about something similar
earlier today...

I'd like to see something like a "Linux Logging" campaign...

The end result is to get Slackware and RPM packages of software which
by default, log everything in /var/log:

You install Apache httpd, and it logs in /var/log/httpd (or apache-httpd)
You install NCSA httpd, and it logs in /var/log/httpd (or ncsa-httpd)
You install ftpd, and it logs in /var/log/ftpd (or wu.ftpd or in.ftpd)
You install "reflect" (CUSeeMe reflector) and it logs in /var/log/reflect

crond... inetd... syslogd... lpd... even gpm can log into a /var/log
directory. Man wouldn't I love to get a package from a particular web site
where the package guaranteed that it was "Linux Logging RFC" compliant or

Wouldn't that be a kick? Write an RFC that says "Linux aims to have standards
of a logical and standardize installation of software", and packages you
find on the net (or at particular ftp sites) comply with it?

Why not extend the paradigm to almost all software that comes in such a
said package. Make "non-essential" packages install in "/usr/local" or a
appropriate directory.

I'm thinking more for "binary" distributions of software, more than
"source", where you actually get "Plug and Play" software for the "end
user" of Linux who doesn't hack source much.

What do you think?