On Fri, 09 Feb 2007 15:37:02 +0100 pknirsch@xxxxxxxxxx (Phil Knirsch) wrote: > Steve Grubb wrote: > > On Friday 09 February 2007 08:53, Patrice Dumas wrote: > >>>> What about the rotated files? > >>> If you know their exact names ..., why not also %ghost them? > >> The local admin could have made changes to the logrotate rules. > > > > Right, that was my point in mentioning rotated logs. The admin > > could have set the number of kept logs to 20. So, the question is > > why should 1 file be ghosted when you have this open ended rotate > > question? > > > > Thats a real good point. No package pwning^H^H^H^H^H^H owning any > logfiles in /var/log/ sounds more and more reasonable. Directories > there are a different matter as they clearly are connected to a > specific package. Yeah, I agree. I guess in this case you could make acpid use a /var/log/acpid/ but not sure if that would really provide any advantages. The dir will always have log files (some number based on logrotate) and won't get removed on package removal either. One nice advantage of having the log file as you do now is that a rpm query will tell you what package owns it. I think that information is pretty obvious most of the time however. From looking at the input here, I think the thing to do would be drop the /var/log/acpid from files for now. > Read ya, Phil kevin
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
