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 The .0 files will also be outdated if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.