On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 14:47 +0100, Mark Knoop wrote:
> At 07:40 on 01 Jun 2011, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 05:22 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:18 +0930
> > > Tim wrote:
> > >
> > > > You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be
> >
At 07:40 on 01 Jun 2011, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 05:22 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> > On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:18 +0930
> > Tim wrote:
> >
> > > You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be
> > > improved, and was disabled in the meantime, then never was
> >
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 05:22 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:18 +0930
> Tim wrote:
>
> > You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be improved, and
> > was disabled in the meantime, then never was improved?
>
> Look again :-). All the changes to boot graphically
On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 11:51:18 +0930
Tim wrote:
> You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be improved, and
> was disabled in the meantime, then never was improved?
Look again :-). All the changes to boot graphically brought
with them one good feature - there is a boot.log file now.
-
On Wed, 2011-06-01 at 11:51 +0930, Tim wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > I think it would be simpler if each new boot simply started a
> > new log file.
>
> You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be improved, and
> was disabled in the meanti
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:12 -0430, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> I think it would be simpler if each new boot simply started a
> new log file.
You mean like the old boot.log file, that was going to be improved, and
was disabled in the meantime, then never was improved?
--
[tim@localhost ~]$ uname
On 05/31/2011 07:25 AM, R. G. Newbury wrote:
> It is far easier to add: echo "Completed boot at `date`"
>
> to the bottom of /etc/rc.d/rc.local
>
> Then it does not matter whether the system is using the old method or
> systemd and whether it is writing to 'messages' or boot.log.
The whole point
On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 12:28 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:17:56 -0600
> Phil Meyer wrote:
>
> > So in summary, if you see a syslog startup, followed within a few lines
> > by the word ' Linux ', and what comes after that appear to be BIOS info,
> > and that all these message
On Tue, 31 May 2011 10:17:56 -0600
Phil Meyer wrote:
> So in summary, if you see a syslog startup, followed within a few lines
> by the word ' Linux ', and what comes after that appear to be BIOS info,
> and that all these messages happen in the same second or two, you have
> found the top of t
On 05/31/2011 08:25 AM, R. G. Newbury wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 18:36 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
Just for curiosity, why has no one ever arranged to
log something like "Hey! I'm booting the system again!"
as the very first line in that goes to /var/log/messages
when
> On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 18:36 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
>> > Just for curiosity, why has no one ever arranged to
>> > log something like "Hey! I'm booting the system again!"
>> > as the very first line in that goes to /var/log/messages
>> > when the system is booting?
> I used to do something l
On 05/30/2011 09:07 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 05:42 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Tom Horsley wrote:
>>
>>> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
>>> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
>>> in a new boot.
>>
>> I agree.
>> Even a couple of blank lines w
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 19:07 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 05:42 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> > Tom Horsley wrote:
> >
> >> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
> >> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
> >> in a new boot.
> >
> > I agree.
> > Even a coup
On Mon, 2011-05-30 at 18:36 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> Just for curiosity, why has no one ever arranged to
> log something like "Hey! I'm booting the system again!"
> as the very first line in that goes to /var/log/messages
> when the system is booting?
I used to do something like that back when
On 05/30/2011 07:07 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 05/30/2011 05:42 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
>> Tom Horsley wrote:
>>
>>> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
>>> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
>>> in a new boot.
>>
>> I agree.
>> Even a couple of blank lines w
On 05/30/2011 05:42 PM, Timothy Murphy wrote:
> Tom Horsley wrote:
>
>> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
>> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
>> in a new boot.
>
> I agree.
> Even a couple of blank lines would help.
>
>
Indeed. Am I the only one on the
Tom Horsley wrote:
> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
> in a new boot.
I agree.
Even a couple of blank lines would help.
--
Timothy Murphy
e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net
tel: +353-86-2336090, +353-1-2842366
s-m
On Mon, 30 May 2011 16:05:07 -0700
Peter Gordon wrote:
> imklog 5.7.9, log source = /proc/kmsg started.
Yea, the same thing starts mine, but I just thought
it would be nice to have something more obvious
(and perhaps less likely to change someday :-).
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproj
On 05/30/2011 03:36 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> If would be real convenient to have a known string to
> search for that always precedes the rest of the messages
> in a new boot.
You could try grep'ing for the Linux version string, always one of the
first several lines printed during kernel startup. T
19 matches
Mail list logo
