chore: rename log pkg and add zerolog

[julienrbrt]

Description

ref: #14872 (comment)

A follow-up PR will remove:

• https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/tools/cosmovisor/logger.go
• https://github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk/blob/main/tools/rosetta/lib/logger/logger.go

Used replaces to do it now and split them all in two groups btw, so that it is clearer what should stay or not when refactoring.

---

Author Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note to the item if the item is not applicable and
please add links to any relevant follow up issues.

I have...

• included the correct type prefix in the PR title
• added ! to the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• targeted the correct branch (see PR Targeting)
• provided a link to the relevant issue or specification
• followed the guidelines for building modules
• included the necessary unit and integration tests
• added a changelog entry to CHANGELOG.md
• included comments for documenting Go code
• updated the relevant documentation or specification
• reviewed "Files changed" and left comments if necessary
• confirmed all CI checks have passed

Reviewers Checklist

All items are required. Please add a note if the item is not applicable and please add
your handle next to the items reviewed if you only reviewed selected items.

I have...

• confirmed the correct type prefix in the PR title
• confirmed ! in the type prefix if API or client breaking change
• confirmed all author checklist items have been addressed
• reviewed state machine logic
• reviewed API design and naming
• reviewed documentation is accurate
• reviewed tests and test coverage
• manually tested (if applicable)

[alexanderbez]

Why do we have a ZeroLogWrapper? This defeats the purpose of using zerolog (with the way it's currently implemented).

[julienrbrt]

This actually re-adds it as it was in server before this PR: #13236.
So then we can implement filtering. I have not changed the implementation. (see todo above)

[alexanderbez]

Yes yes, I recall (I wrote it :P) but what I'm asking is that we removed it for a reason and now we're adding it back. Why are we adding it back? It's not performant nor does it give us any of the benefits of zerolog

[julienrbrt]

I thought it was removed because it didn't have filtered logging.
AFAIK it was still more performant that the TM logger and re-added it to have a base.
If it should be deleted, then sure!

[alexanderbez]

Yes, the filtering was missing indeed. But I'm pretty sure it was less performant I think. There's an issue lingering around

[alexanderbez]

The interface provided by comet will be replaced to what we want after we migrate the repo.

How? You've convinced them to adopt our logging interface?

[tac0turtle]

You've convinced them to adopt our logging interface?

I was thinking we do a wrapper of our logger where we pass it to tendermint. there is no need for us to have the same interface.

#14967

[alexanderbez]

Yes, but at some point you will have to pass a logger to Comet and that logger must conform to Comet's interface. In essence, we'll have two loggers being used -- one for Comet and one for the app.

[tac0turtle]

yes, at that point we just provide a wrapper that is separate from our interface.

[alexanderbez]

cc @julienrbrt we should call the logger CometZerologWrapper IMO