On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 06:00:28PM -0800, Jason R Thorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 12:53:06PM +1100, Luke Mewburn wrote:

>  > because we're very inconsistent in the tree about whether we use
>  > __progname or the explicit name, with the explicit name seeming to
>  > have more use.

> Well, personally, I'd rather see more consistent use of __progname.  If
> we're going to use __progname in usage(), and not in syslogs, well, that
> seems kind of silly.

Luke's commits to not use __progname caused me to realise that what he's
doing is actually a good thing.  __progname is probably OK for usage()
and such.  However, logfiles are of a more permanent nature.

And I wouldn't want to find the effects of
  execl("/some/program/that/is/certain/to/syslog",
        "our sysadmin has a kiddie pr0n archive in /foobar", 0);
in the log files when I'm digging up evidence for the feds.

Sure, syslog has no authentication and is easily spammed.  That shouldn't
be construed as an excuse to make the log files a bit more reliable, though.

--chris