Marc Haber schrieb:
> On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:57:54 +0200, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> 2.) Try to log rotate the .0 files for the default Debian log files in
>> postinst. I feel a bit uneasy about this approach, for several reasons:
>> - It adds fairly reasonable complexity to the
On Fri, 19 Sep 2008 23:57:54 +0200, Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>2.) Try to log rotate the .0 files for the default Debian log files in
>postinst. I feel a bit uneasy about this approach, for several reasons:
>- It adds fairly reasonable complexity to the maintainer scripts, if you
> w
On Sat, Sep 20, 2008 at 01:20:06AM +0300, Faidon Liambotis wrote:
> Michael Biebl wrote:
> > 3.) Delete the .0 files in postinst. Is this covered by the policy?
> I think that deleting logfiles without warning is totally unacceptable.
Outside of purge at least.
Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <[EM
On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 12:01:57 +0300, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri,19.Sep.08, 23:57:54, Michael Biebl wrote:
> > Afaics I have the following options.
> > 1.) Do nothing and simply document this fact in README.Debian, telling
> > the admin that he can safely delete this files if he no longer needs
On 2008-09-20 11:14 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> I would have rather suggested NEWS.Debian if apt-listchanges was higher
>> priority. Anyway, this should also be documented in the release notes.
>
> Agreed, mentioning this issue in the release notes would probably be a
>
Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Fri,19.Sep.08, 23:57:54, Michael Biebl wrote:
>
>> Afaics I have the following options.
>> 1.) Do nothing and simply document this fact in README.Debian, telling
>> the admin that he can safely delete this files if he no longer needs them.
>
> I would have rather sugg
On Fri,19.Sep.08, 23:57:54, Michael Biebl wrote:
> Afaics I have the following options.
> 1.) Do nothing and simply document this fact in README.Debian, telling
> the admin that he can safely delete this files if he no longer needs them.
I would have rather suggested NEWS.Debian if apt-listchan
Patrick Schönfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 2008/9/19 Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
>> 3.) Delete the .0 files in postinst. Is this covered by the policy?
> Not without a backup or asking the user first. You could ask the user
> via debconf. I think this is a case, which would justif
Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
> Unfortunately sysklogd uses a custom log rotate mechanism,
> which starts the log rotate cycle at .0
> The default logrotate configuration starts the log rotate cyle at .1.
> This leaves .0 files around when you switch from sysklogd to rsyslog [2]
>
Hi,
2008/9/19 Michael Biebl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> rsyslog, in contrast to sysklogd, uses logrotate to rotate the default
> log files. Unfortunately sysklogd uses a custom log rotate mechanism,
> which starts the log rotate cycle at .0
> The default logrotate configuration starts the log rotate cy
Michael Biebl wrote:
> 2.) Try to log rotate the .0 files for the default Debian log files in
> postinst. I feel a bit uneasy about this approach, for several reasons:
> - It adds fairly reasonable complexity to the maintainer scripts, if you
> want to consider all corner cases.
> E.g. if you swit
Hi,
as rsyslog will be our default syslogd for lenny, I'd like to fix bug
#491672 [1], I'm just undecided about which solution is best.
rsyslog, in contrast to sysklogd, uses logrotate to rotate the default
log files. Unfortunately sysklogd uses a custom log rotate mechanism,
which starts the log
12 matches
Mail list logo
