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

Re: logrotate does not work on my log (Debian Jessie)



On Wednesday 27 January 2016 16:00:59 Glyn Astill wrote:

> > From: ikuzar RABE <ikuzar9295@gmail.com>
> >To: Glyn Astill <glynastill@yahoo.co.uk>
> >Cc: "debian-user@lists.debian.org" <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
> >Sent: Wednesday, 27 January 2016, 16:56
> >Subject: Re: logrotate does not work on my log (Debian Jessie)
> >
> >
> >
> >the ownership of my_app.log.gz is not root (just a simple user, and a
> > simple group)
>
> Right, so add a line like this to the body of your logrotate file:
>
>     su <your files owner> <your files group ownership>

I went the other way around that bush.  Those files which are generated 
by MY activities, I could not see any reason I should be denied access 
to them. And I know a little about bash scripts.  So I created a 'log' 
directory in my home directory, and without any fanfare, moved those 
logs to ~/log, like fetchmail, procmail, mailfilter, spamassassin, yadda 
yadda.

Then I fixed logrotate to handle them in their new home.  End of problem 
as I now own my own logs.

udev is getting ever more difficult to live with, and IMNO its paranoia 
isn't exactly becoming.  I'd yell fix it, but no one is listening.  
Recently it decided that my heyu commands didn't have write privs 
to /dev/ttyUSB0, so I now have an overriding pair of chmod/chown 
commands in my rc.local file.

What ails the udev maintainer(s) that seem to think the owner and only 
human user of this machine is to be denied access to its facilities?

It is MY machine, and I built it for ME to use. And if someone in the 
udev camp gets upset because I have made it usable to me, I could care 
less but it would take more effort than I'm willing to put into not 
caring...

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>


Reply to: