Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.debian.bugs.dist > #1231714

Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs

From Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk>
Newsgroups linux.debian.bugs.dist
Subject Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs
Date 2025-02-04 11:00 +0100
Message-ID <KcnSN-eiFs-1@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References (6 earlier) <Kcf8R-ecQa-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <KbtdT-dDEI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Kcnzr-eiud-3@gated-at.bofh.it> <KbtdT-dDEI-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Kcnzr-eiud-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw


On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 10:32:55AM +0100, Chris Hofstaedtler wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 12:33:04AM +0000, Andrew Bower wrote:
> > 
> > Surely it depends - some thing are highly distro-specific. The amount of
> > detritus that accumulates in upstream contrib directories over the
> > years... scripts that new integrators would surely rather rewrite for
> > their own context.
> 
> I just don't see why different distros need to come up with
> different log rotating strategies. If one distro does the work, then
> all can and should benefit. Also it will be less surprising for
> upstream, when they introduce a rotation-with-purging concept.

Funnily enough that was my initial intention - add pruning to and/or
alongside the rotate operation upstream.

The reason I didn't was because I thought it was a bit late to
co-ordinate at this stage and because I thought that would be vulnerable
to the criticism of "why are you doing this task in C that is a natural
fit for a system script". Food for thought though - I'll look into it.

> > > > What do we think of that idea? It seems logical - no point in rotating
> > > > tiny files!
> > > 
> > > It's a trade off to what should be kept. If you have strict
> > > requirements on how many days can be kept, then also small files
> > > must be treated.
> > 
> > Not sure what you're suggesting there, I mean that there's no point in
> > splitting the master log file into tiny fragments in the first place,
> > not that they shouldn't be kept - to the contrary! I don't think we have
> > to be too tight on the storage, just to be bounded, not be pathological
> > and not leave a dog's breakfast on the user's filesystem!
> 
> I'm saying that in some jurisdictions you cannot keep such logs
> longer than X days. If you skip over small files, you will keep them
> longer than X days.

Ah yes, then that makes sense. Max age.

Back to linux.debian.bugs.dist | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk> - 2025-02-01 22:30 +0100
  Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk> - 2025-02-03 23:40 +0100
    Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-02-04 00:00 +0100
      Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk> - 2025-02-04 01:40 +0100
        Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Chris Hofstaedtler <zeha@debian.org> - 2025-02-04 10:40 +0100
          Bug#1094965: wtmpdb: provides no way to prune rotated logs Andrew Bower <andrew@bower.uk> - 2025-02-04 11:00 +0100

csiph-web