Paul de Weerd wrote:
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 04:18:22PM +0200, frantisek holop wrote:
| > Come on man .. 'can of worms' ?! It's not even a real challenge.
|
| you left off the year...
So you think it's my problem ? I showed two possible options, both
very workable (and easily extensible to add something simple as a
year). Yet...
| i'd rather not bloat my 3 line scripts with lookup tables
| and recursive date(1) calls, i prefer them easy and short.
...you choose to complain about the options I provided.
| here's the full picture of the current situation:
|
| on 1. april i get this file through monthly.local:
|
| logfile-2010-04.log.gz
|
| containing all _march_ entries (plus some april if it creeped in).
|
| i have 2 choices:
| 1. do the rename dance backwards one month
| 2. let the job actually run sometimes before midnight, last day of the month.
or 3. use "recursive date(1) calls" (how, exactly, are those
recursive ? you've got a weird definition of recursion)
gzip < ${LOG} > logfile-$(date -r $(($(date +%s) - 86400)) +%Y-%m).gz
There, I've put in the year for you, beacuse you couldn't think of
that yourself somehow. I don't really care much how you do it, but
that is not recursion nor very bloated, imo.
You come to this list to ask for something. It's not possible and you
are given alternative solutions. All you can do is complain about
them. Why ?
| regarding the "forward casualties" of log rotation, yes it's the same.
| while chronologically i still prefer the other way, i.e. have older
| entries in the newer log file (and not newer entries in older logfiles),
| but the main issue is, that i end up with the wrong file name.
It isn't an issue - the solution has been presented to you. A few
lines up, I've spelled it out for you (one possible solution, that
is). You just choose to publicly dismiss it because you don't like it.
Why ?
Paul 'WEiRD' de Weerd
PS: Don't bother replying to the 'whys' in this e-mail, they're meant
for self-reflection.
I think I can read his mind here.
He is clearly stating that the existing software is not adequate for his
needs. Let's face it, software written in perl, script, and C often
bloat things up unnecessarily. Sure, C compilers are getting better, but
small fast programs are often best produced by going to straight
assembly language.
Some of the correct tools, if i386 is being used - nasm or fasm or yasm,
ald plus a little study and Boom! small neat fast tools to do all of
this work. Screw that piece of junk cron! :)
--
A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion,
butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance
accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders,
give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new
problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight
efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
-- Robert Heinlein
