William L. Maltby wrote:
> My system, 4.2 i386, fully current AFAIK, does not have
>
> scripts/shared/applyyumdate
>
> but does have applyusdate.
The applyyumdate is new file (intriduced by patch). It does not exist
in current logwatch. The yum.log logfile has same date format as
standard syslog logfiles. However there's some differences after the
date (hostname, process name, and PID are missing), so existing
applystdate can't be used to process yum.log. I had two options. To
patch applystddate to be able to parse yum.log (trivial, just add two
lines to it), or to create separate file just for yum.log. I opted for
later approach. Patching applystddate was bad choice (IMO) since it
might change what gets filtered out from standard logfiles (where it is
heavilly used). Reports generated by logwatch in CentOS could differ
from logwatch in upstream. Creating new date filter script
(applyyumdate) that would be used only for processing yum logfiles isn't
going to change how standard logfiles are processed. Except for
additonal yum section, the remainder of report would be exactly the same.
I don't have any Fedora Core system handy (right now). Fedora Core uses
yum (same as CentOS). If the same bug exists in Fedora Core, submitting
a patch might be good idea (since Fedora Core is upstream's testing
ground). Anybody has FC3 or FC4 at hand, and could check how
/var/log/yum.log looks like? Is it the same format as in CentOS 4. I
guess it should be. AFAIK (and I could be wrong) yum in CentOS should
be yum from FC? Does logwatch works correctly in FC3 and FC4 (as far as
parsing yum.log)?
