On Fri, 2007-02-09 at 15:37 +0100, 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. I got bit on my server, which runs debian. (changing to CentOS Real Soon Now...) When I moved it over to Apache 2 from 1.3, I left 1.3 installed until it worked. Once I got everything going under Apache 2, I dpkg --purged Apache 1.3, and to my surprise, it nuked several years worth of access log files. I wanted to keep them around for running statistics and such. Oh well, live and learn. Thanks, debian...
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
