On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 10:23:43AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've installed it onto my real potato system, then it complains about no
> 'utmp' group and exits status 1. Is there any special way to create the
> group? I'm assuming it doesn't need a specific gid, just one in the system
> rang
I've installed it onto my real potato system, then it complains about no
'utmp' group and exits status 1. Is there any special way to create the
group? I'm assuming it doesn't need a specific gid, just one in the system
range.
On Wed, 19 May 1999, Joseph Carter wrote:
[snip]
> The package is co
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 02:47:45AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> Yes, got all the seconds it needs. It's now been changed to [AMMENDMENT]
> iirc (I'm about to hit the sack so don't count on my memory) The only
> thing that has come up is the sudden question about the .log thing, which
> I actuall
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 07:22:42PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > The package is considered production quality by Redhat (not that this
> > means ANYTHING...) I've locally converted exim, apache, and a couple
> > other things to it. Seems to work fine.
>
> Well, I'd presume it's the rpm that Red
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 01:50:33AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote:
> On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 02:34:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Do we actually have some packages using Joseph's logrotate.deb yet, btw? It
> > seems a little premature to ammend policy before the package has undergone
> > much tes
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 02:34:43PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Or, alternately,
>
> $ tail -n0 -f /var/log/*
>
> ...to only give output for files that actually change while you're
> watching.
>
> Do we actually have some packages using Joseph's logrotate.deb yet, btw? It
> seems a little p
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 04:02:11PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Also, one does not want the *.0 files that lgorotate creates,
> so the expression gets more complex. (a.log, a.log.0, a.log.1.gz,
> etc)
Or, alternately,
$ tail -n0 -f /var/log/*
...to only give output for files th
Hi,
>>"Conrad" == Conrad Parker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Also, one does not want the *.0 files that lgorotate creates,
so the expression gets more complex. (a.log, a.log.0, a.log.1.gz,
etc)
Conrad> (bash)
Conrad> shopt -s extglob
__> shopt -s extglob
bash: shopt: extglob:
Thanks for the globbing tips.
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 10:54:26AM -0400, Michael Stone wrote:
> (of course, this will be interesting when it comes to wtmp...)
This is my point again, not everything in /var/log is an asci file -
even excluding *.gz ...
--
Robert Collier
On Wed, May 19, 1999 at 12:20:21AM +1000, Conrad Parker wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Robert Collier wrote:
> > ie. tail all logfiles, until shell expansion allows me to tail
> > everything except *.gz haveing a common extension is usefull.
>
> (bash)
>
> shopt -s ext
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 02:50:22PM +0100, Robert Collier wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:12:07PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
>
> > I find the ".log" extension redundant here. After all, it's a
> > log directory, right? It's like having /bin/ls.bin ... Reminds me
> > of .exe extensions too muc
On Tue, May 18, 1999 at 03:12:07PM +0200, Paul Slootman wrote:
> I find the ".log" extension redundant here. After all, it's a
> log directory, right? It's like having /bin/ls.bin ... Reminds me
> of .exe extensions too much.
But, it is very usefull in that it allows one to do:
cd /var/
Sorry to be so very late on this...
On Wed 28 Apr 1999, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
>
> Log files should usually be named `/var/log/.log'. If you
I find the ".log" extension redundant here. After all, it's a
log directory, right? It's like having /bin/ls.bin ... Reminds me
of .exe extensions t
It was done in the original message. Joey is correct in pointing that out.
All the seconds (including mine) WERE to that original language.
BR
On 29 Apr 1999, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Could one of the proposers or seconds please create the
> language that should go into polic
Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> Could one of the proposers or seconds please create the
> language that should go into policy? A paragraph on what is expected
> of package developers (drop a file into logrotate), and possibly
> *examples* (which would not be formally policy, and may get out of
Hi,
Could one of the proposers or seconds please create the
language that should go into policy? A paragraph on what is expected
of package developers (drop a file into logrotate), and possibly
*examples* (which would not be formally policy, and may get out of
date wrt to the software
On Apr 28, Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I have posted a logrotation proposal on -devel which I copy here too (with
>some slight modifications), so that the required policy modifications can be
>made.
Seconded. It's about time we design a consistent
On Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 11:08:08AM +0200, Balazs Scheidler wrote:
> This requires some policy changes, so all packages move to this new scheme.
> And that's why I post this here.
Seconded.
Le Wed, Apr 28, 1999 at 11:08:08AM +0200, Balazs Scheidler écrivait:
> It is the best solution I have seen so far, so I suggest moving to logrotate.
> This is not an easy transition, since each package has to drop files to
> /etc/logrotate.d/ instead of /etc/cron.xxx.
>
> This requires some polic
I second the proposal made by Balazs Scheidler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on this
subject.
---
Brock Rozen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Director of Technical Services (410) 602-1350
Project Genesis http://ww
Hi,
I have posted a logrotation proposal on -devel which I copy here too (with
some slight modifications), so that the required policy modifications can be
made.
In the meanwhile logrotate has been packaged and uploaded.
The section 4.8. should be modified, for example the following way:
4.8
21 matches
Mail list logo
