On Tue, Jan 22, 2008 at 07:19:20PM -0800, Don Armstrong wrote:
> 0: And actually, it's not clear to me why syslog-ng doens't depend on
> logrotate.
I've ran plenty of machines logging directly to
.../$HOST/$/$MM/$DD/$SERVICE -- no rotation there.
--
:(){ :|:&};:
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email t
> Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Exactly. If any of the old, rather inflexible syslog implementations
>> depended on logrotate, I would say that would be perfectly fine. But
>> for applications (even if they write their logs themselves like
>> apache or samba usually do), I w
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Sven Mueller wrote:
> Exactly. If any of the old, rather inflexible syslog implementations
> depended on logrotate, I would say that would be perfectly fine. But
> for applications (even if they write their logs themselves like
> apache or samba usually do), I would only expect
Ivan Shmakov schrieb:
> Since I've already started this thread, I'm going to ask for
> opinions on the one more issue with the current (Etch, at least)
> dependencies in Debian to bother me.
>
> Is `logrotate' really necessary for those 46 packages or so in
> Etch to
> Ralf Treinen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either `fortune-mod' or
>> `fortune-min':
[...]
>> Does it make sense, provided that the fortune files may as well be
>> read by M-x fortune in Emacs, or even by a plain `less'?
> Probably not, i
On Sun, Jan 20, 2008 at 02:01:51AM +0600, Ivan Shmakov wrote:
> Currently, the `fortunes' package depends on either
> `fortune-mod' or `fortune-min':
>
> $ apt-cache show fortunes
> Package: fortunes
> ...
> Source: fortune-mod
> Version: 1:1.99.1-3
> Provides: fortune-cookie-db
> Depe
6 matches
Mail list logo
