logwatch patch

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



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)?

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux