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

Re: Strange syslog behaviour [Solved]





-------- Original Message --------
*Subject: *  Re: Strange syslog behaviour [Solved]
*From: *     David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk>
*To: *         Debian-user <debian-user@lists.debian.org>
*CC: *
*Date: *      2022-10-16  01:27 AM
On Sat 15 Oct 2022 at 13:59:18 (-0400), Wayne Sallee obfuscated the following with HTML:

Jeremy Ardley, did you update your code from " invoke-rc.d rsyslog rotate > /dev/null" to
"/usr/lib/rsyslog/rsyslog-rotate"?
I've added a new post to that part of the thread. I think your
problem concerns changing to systemd, whereas his concerns mixing
inetdutils-* packages with the more usual equivalent ones.

So I got my servers straitened out, I think. I will know tomorrow.
For anyone else running into this problem, the problem was caused from modifying
/etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog then upgrading to Buster.
The fix:
diff /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog.dpkg-dist /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog
edit /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog
Change from
                  invoke-rc.d rsyslog rotate > /dev/null
to
                  /usr/lib/rsyslog/rsyslog-rotate
Then delete /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog.dpkg-dist
I then rebooted my servers to get the syslog used.
Then
ls /var/log | grep syslog
To see that it was working. I will know tomorrow if it is still working.
I think the point you've missed is that at some stage, you upgraded
from SystemV to systemd. Whenever that happened, the upgrade to
rsyslog would have supplied a new /etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog file
containing "/usr/lib/rsyslog/rsyslog-rotate", which knows how to
handle both SystemV and systemd systems.

My situation is now solved. It's working as it should. I think Debian 9 is systemd by default, so I don't think it was a change from systemv to systemd. But it was definitely a change in programs used that required the change to "rsyslog-rotate".


You rejected the new file, which is why it was instead written to
/etc/logrotate.d/rsyslog.dpkg-dist (which you could have safely
left or removed—it's harmless).

Yes, I rejected the new file, causing the other file to be there. It would be nice if updates told what needed to be updated in the old file when updates are done.


Effectively, your edit has merged the contents of both files,
whatever changes you made earlier before the Buster upgrade,
and the vital change that would have been made for you if
you'd accepted the new version.

But If I had accepted the new file, it would probably have discarded the changes that I had made.

It would be nice if updates presented "old file", "new file", "combined file"; choice: (1), (2), (3).

Wayne Sallee
Wayne@WayneSallee.com
http://www.WayneSallee.com

Cheers,
David.




Reply to: