Thijs Kinkhorst writes:
> On snein 11 July 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:22:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> Guillem Jover writes:
Probably better to recommend using start-stop-daemon, as it's more
robust and should properly handle for example the case o
On snein 11 July 2010, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:22:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Guillem Jover writes:
> > > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > >> +postrotate
> > >> +[ -f /var/run/foo.pid ] && kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/foo.p
On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 09:22:28AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
> > On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> >> +postrotate
> >> +[ -f /var/run/foo.pid ] && kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/foo.pid`
> >> +endscript
> > Probably better to recommen
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> +postrotate
>> +[ -f /var/run/foo.pid ] && kill -s HUP `cat /var/run/foo.pid`
>> +endscript
> Probably better to recommend using start-stop-daemon, as it's more
> robust and should properly handl
Hi!
On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 08:59:24 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> I propose the following patch for this bug instead in order to get it
> clear of this discussion. We can always go back and sort out whether it
> should use invoke-rc.d after we work through the other bug.
>
> Does this look okay?
>
Steve Langasek writes:
> I think "invoke-rc.d" is wrong per se for this. Where the behavior of
> 'invoke-rc.d foo reload' differs from that of '/etc/init.d/reload', it's
> *incorrect* in the context of log rotation: the post-rotation reopening
> of logfiles should complete regardless of the runl
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 02:51:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > I'm not nearly so certain that it's not a bug to use invoke-rc.d here.
> > The desired semantics of a logrotate script are "after rotating the log,
> > *iff the daemon is running*, reload it to trigger it t
Steve Langasek writes:
> I'm not nearly so certain that it's not a bug to use invoke-rc.d here.
> The desired semantics of a logrotate script are "after rotating the log,
> *iff the daemon is running*, reload it to trigger it to reopen the
> logfile; otherwise do nothing". *Neither* the existing
On Sun, Jul 04, 2010 at 08:29:32AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek writes:
> > This force-reload also caught my eye when I first read the patch, but I
> > think this should be treated as a separate bug. logrotate scripts are *not*
> > maintainer scripts, and recommending use of invok
Steve Langasek writes:
> This force-reload also caught my eye when I first read the patch, but I
> think this should be treated as a separate bug. logrotate scripts are *not*
> maintainer scripts, and recommending use of invoke-rc.d for non-maintainer
> scripts is a separate substantive change t
On Sat, Jul 03, 2010 at 08:03:25PM -0500, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > @@ -7897,25 +7899,28 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq
> > section="8">):
> >
> > /var/log/foo/*.log {
> > -rotate 12
> > -weekly
> > -compress
> > -postrotate
> > -/etc/init.d/foo force-reload
>
On Saturday 03 July 2010 20:13:19 Russ Allbery wrote:
> Good point. Here's an updated patch.
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..9399b1a 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7868,11 +7868,13 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail debian/tmp/usr/bin/runq
>
>
>
Raphael Geissert writes:
> While we are at it please let's use invoke-rc.d, which is what should be
> used. The current example could actually be considered as a violation
> of section 9.3.3.2 (if a logrotate file is considered as a "package
> maintainer script,") so please take this email as an
Hi,
On Saturday 03 July 2010 15:13:41 Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Here's a proposed patch that implements this. Objections or seconds?
>
> diff --git a/policy.sgml b/policy.sgml
> index bad28af..a676e71 100644
> --- a/policy.sgml
> +++ b/policy.sgml
> @@ -7868,11 +7868,13 @@ ln -fs ../sbin/sendmail
Paul Martin writes:
> Section 10.8 suggests the use of a configuration file in
> /etc/logrotate.d, but doesn't suggest a name.
> I propose that the suggested name be /etc/logrotate.d/ in
> almost all circumstances, irrespective of the name(s) of the files being
> rotated. A logrotate.d configura
Package: debian-policy
Version: 3.7.2.2
Severity: wishlist
Section 10.8 suggests the use of a configuration file in
/etc/logrotate.d, but doesn't suggest a name.
I propose that the suggested name be /etc/logrotate.d/ in
almost all circumstances, irrespective of the name(s) of the files being
r
16 matches
Mail list logo
