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

[Fourhundred Thecat]

 > 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:

>>
>> case LOGTYPE_SYSLOG:
>>           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.

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

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