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
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 include it in their `Dep
> 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
Package: fortunes
Version: 1:1.99.1-3
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
Depends: fortune-mod (>= 9708-12), fortunes
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
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
Depends: fortune-mod (>= 9708-12), fortunes-min
...
Does it make sense, p
9 matches
Mail list logo
