[asterisk-users] problem with logger: syslog vs. file

Tony Mountifield tony at softins.co.uk
Wed Jun 3 05:18:29 CDT 2020

In article <88f96e46-e6bb-a7ef-bebb-5588ef6cd6c1 at gmx.ch>,
Fourhundred Thecat <400thecat at gmx.ch> wrote:
>  > On 2020-06-02 17:48, Tony Mountifield wrote:
> > In article <94191802-6c9c-bdab-615b-001786a2a0ca at gmx.ch>,
> > Fourhundred Thecat <400thecat at gmx.ch> wrote:
> >>   > On 2019-11-16 03:29, Fourhundred Thecat wrote:
> >>
> >>           snprintf(buf, size, "%s[%d]%s: %s:%d in %s: %s",
> >>                levels[msg->level], msg->lwp, call_identifier_str,
> >> msg->file, msg->line, msg->function, msg->message);
> >>           term_strip(buf, buf, size);
> >>           break;
> >>
> >> case LOGTYPE_FILE:
> >>           snprintf(buf, size, "[%s] %s[%d]%s %s: %s",
> >>                 msg->date, msg->level_name, msg->lwp,
> >> call_identifier_str, msg->file, msg->message);
> >>           term_strip(buf, buf, size);
> >>           break;
> >>
> >>
> >> so basically, it is hardcoded that logging to syslog adds extra
> >> msg->line and msg->function.
> >>
> >> why would anybody do that ?
> >>
> >> This seems to me like a very unfortunate decision.
> >> Is there a reason for this ?
> >> Am I missing something?
> >
> > But someone with a different opinion than yours might well say "Why did
> > they decide to omit the line number and function from the file logging?
> > It's very useful information!"
> >
> > The beauty of open source is of course that if you feel strongly enough,
> > you can modify the source file before you build it, so it shows just
> > what you want.
> I know I can patch asterisk and compile myself. I did it in the past,
> and it is tedious to keep own patches and manage own packages. Its last
> resort for me.
> Anyway, I am asking weather there is a reason why this particular
> decision was taken. To me perosnally it seems like idiocy, but I am not
> developer and maybe I am missing something.

I have no idea, I'm not part of Asterisk development. I suspect that each
logging type was added separately by different people, and it just happened.

> If I am right, and this is a bug, then I would like to suggest this
> should be fixed.

I would agree that the fact the two logging types show different information
is a bug, and you could report it at https://issues.asterisk.org/

However, the conversation would then be: should both logging types include
line number and function? should both logging types omit them? should
it be a configuration option in logger.conf whether they include or omit?
if so, what should the default be, if not specified in logger.conf?

> I am grateful for asterisk, and I want to help improve, even if in a
> small way.



Tony Mountifield
Work: tony at softins.co.uk - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony at mountifield.org - http://tony.mountifield.org

More information about the asterisk-users mailing list