From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <glibc-bugs-return-27080-listarch-glibc-bugs=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 31444 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2015 07:57:42 -0000
Mailing-List: contact glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <glibc-bugs.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:glibc-bugs-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Post: <mailto:glibc-bugs@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:glibc-bugs-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/lists.html#faqs>
Sender: glibc-bugs-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 31407 invoked by uid 48); 13 Jan 2015 07:57:36 -0000
From: "vincenzo.romano at notorand dot it" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: glibc-bugs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug libc/11715] syslog() does not include usecs in timestamp
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 07:57:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: glibc
X-Bugzilla-Component: libc
X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.3.4
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: vincenzo.romano at notorand dot it
X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: drepper.fsp at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: security-
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: priority cc
Message-ID: <bug-11715-131-LP68BZRYmL@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-11715-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-11715-131@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-01/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11715

vincenzo.romano at notorand dot it changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|P1                          |P3
                 CC|                            |vincenzo.romano at notorand dot it

--- Comment #2 from vincenzo.romano at notorand dot it ---
As per RFC5424, chapter 6, the field TIME-SECFRAC is optional.
And the meaning of "optional" is explained in RFC2119 chapter 5.
This basically means that:
1. it's OK if this field is missing
2. it's OK if this field is present
In either case, no piece of software should break upon submitting, delivering
or receiving such a message.

The ticket issuer should discuss with "whoever in charge"(tm) whether this is a
desirable enhancement or not.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.