[syslog-ng] [PATCH 0/3] WIP: Convert syslog-ng to use upstream ivykis

[Lennert Buytenhek]

On Tue, May 08, 2012 at 10:34:06AM +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:

> >> Nevertheless! The good news still is, that we're *very* close to being
> >> able to build with upstream ivykis! A few issues to fix, and then
> >> comes the next part: going over all the changes that were made to the
> >> BalaBit fork of ivykis, and send everything upstream that has not been
> >> sent yet.
> >
> > Right, there's several changes still in your version of ivykis that
> > haven't made it into mine (e.g. to have an abstraction for syslog(),
> > which seems a generally good idea to have, and probably there's more
> > bits as well).  Do you think syslog-ng is ready for inclusion into
> > e.g. Fedora as-is, or do you want to get those changes merged into
> > upstream ivykis as well first?
> 
> The move to upstream ivykis is something that I wouldn't feel
> comfortable with doing in 3.3 (at least not yet), and 3.4 is still only
> alpha, and I wouldn't push it towards Fedora just yet.
> 
> However, as far as I'm concerned, syslog-ng 3.4 + current ivykis (with
> the io handlers fixed, patch will be on its way in a bit) is ready to be
> experimented with, and included in development/experimental distro
> branches (such as OpenSUSE Factory and Debian experimental, and whatever
> Fedora has - if anything - that is similar in spirit). The other
> differences can be resolved later, since 3.4 is still in development.
> 
> In the long run, when everything was sent your way upstream and the code
> differences resolved, I might consider merging the patches into
> syslog-ng 3.3, but I want to be very careful about it. I prefer fixing
> things instead of accidentally breaking them, and replacing the forked
> ivykis with upstream is quite an invasive change.

OK, clear.  This seems reasonable.