On Sunday 07 Aug 2011 16:20:18 Florian Philipp wrote: > Am 07.08.2011 02:22, schrieb Mick: > > On Friday 05 Aug 2011 23:08:38 Neil Bothwick wrote: > >> On Fri, 05 Aug 2011 17:59:00 +0200, Florian Philipp wrote: > >>> Yes, this was introduced in 3.8.0 to fix security issues [1]. Change > >>> your config to look like this: > >>> /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log { > >>> su portage portage > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> Disclaimer: I've not really tried this (yet) but I think I'm able to > >>> read changelogs and man-pages. ;-) > >> > >> Yes that fixes it. The latest portage ebuilds include an updated config > >> file. > > > > Hmm ... it still complains here! > > > > error: error setting owner of > > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log-20110801.gz: Operation not permitted > > > > > > This is my /etc/logrotate.d/elog-save-summary: > > =================================== > > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log { > > > > su portage portage > > > > missingok > > nocreate > > delaycompress > > > > } > > =================================== > > > > # ls -la /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log > > -rw-rw-r-- 1 root portage 4326 Aug 6 09:44 > > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log > > > > Can you see anything amiss? > > At least on my system, /var/log/portage has the following permissions: > drwxr-xr-x root root > > Only root can write, therefore the config must read > > /var/log/portage/elog/summary.log { > su root portage > missingok > nocreate > delaycompress > } > > Hope this helps, > Florian Philipp
Thanks for this Florian, It is interesting that two of my machines actually are set up like this: drwxrws--- 2 portage portage 240 Aug 9 21:07 elog and /var/log/portage is also set up like this: drwxrws--- 4 portage portage 7152 Aug 7 18:04 portage However, I can't remember if I set it up like that myself (these are old machines). The latest and newest installation on a third box looks just like yours. -- Regards, Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.