Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d

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

To: "Discussion related to Fedora Extras" <fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
From: "Michael Stahnke" <mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 23:34:10 -0600
In-reply-to: <20061125023835.GC2297@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4566C658.8060307@xxxxxx> <18132.192.54.193.51.1164371456.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <ek8630$4b9$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20061125023835.GC2297@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: mastahnke@xxxxxxxxx, Discussion related to Fedora Extras <fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx>

Do a lot of people actually remove logrotate? I find it quite handy on every system I have. I guess I vote for Requires: logrotate. If you don't want logrotate, won't that mess up several other packages also?

-- 
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list

Follow-Ups:
- Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Dennis Gilmore
- Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Garrick Staples

References:
- unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Hans de Goede
- Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Nicolas Mailhot
- Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Rex Dieter
- Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
  - From: Garrick Staples

Prev by Date: Re: An updated libgpod for core and python bindings for extras
Next by Date: Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
Previous by thread: Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
Next by thread: Re: unowned directory problem with /etc/logrotate.d
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Fedora General Discussion] [Fedora Art] [Fedora Docs] [Fedora Package Review] [Fedora Desktop] [Big List of Linux Books] [Yosemite Backpacking] [KDE Users]