[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [RFC] How should rsyslog handle .0 logfiles from sysklogd

On 2008-09-20 11:14 +0200, Michael Biebl wrote:

> Andrei Popescu wrote:
>> I would have rather suggested NEWS.Debian if apt-listchanges was higher 
>> priority. Anyway, this should also be documented in the release notes.
> Agreed, mentioning this issue in the release notes would probably be a
> good idea in this case.

And they do not need to describe the issue in detail, just having a
pointer to your (supposed) README.Debian is enough.

>> After reading this I went on cleaning my /var/log/ and found some recent 
>> .0 files (I switched to rsyslog in July):
> I forgot to mention this in 2.). The .0 files will also be outdated if
> you have already switched to rsyslog (as user of testing or unstable),
> i.e. .1 will be newer than .0.
> What to do in this case? Rotating .0 imho would do more harm than good.

I think this pretty much rules 2.) out.

     who wishes that savelog and logrotate would agree on using .0 or .1
     files.  Had to hunt down /var/log/*.0 and examine which files there
     actually belong to sysklogd.

Reply to: