From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael Tremer <michael.tremer@ipfire.org>
To: development@lists.ipfire.org
Subject: Re: reversion of access.log commenting out in rootfile
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2024 11:04:30 +0100
Message-ID: <02570FD5-890E-4256-A63B-700DE5E2FF0E@ipfire.org>
In-Reply-To: <0a558cdd-3241-4ca1-a388-2b6d0024f108@ipfire.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0624317460911659368=="
List-Id: <development.lists.ipfire.org>

--===============0624317460911659368==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thank you for confirming this.

> On 13 Aug 2024, at 12:04, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>=20
> Hi Michael & Arne,
>=20
> On 13/08/2024 11:57, Michael Tremer wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I am going to reply on Arne=E2=80=99s behalf...
>>> On 9 Aug 2024, at 16:25, Adolf Belka <adolf.belka(a)ipfire.org> wrote:
>>>=20
>>> Hi Arne,
>>>=20
>>> I saw that my patch for commenting out the access.log in the rootfile had=
 been reverted.
>>>=20
>>> https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3D97067db7862450b=
b40d4e9188627d6b5585bf931
>>>=20
>>> I don't understand the meaning of
>>>=20
>>> "the file was created to be shipped with permissions
>>> so it is needed in the rootfile."
>> The file is created with other than default ownership than root or maybe o=
ther permissions than 644.
> I will need to have a sit-down and think further on understanding this.
>=20
> However, I believe it when you say that it causes a problem if it is remove=
d from the rootfile.
>> There is a follow-up commit which should exclude it from being overwritten:
>>   https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommitdiff;h=3D6f83ae4c95=
9045c866c08cc326f36ff645952ae4
> I hadn't seen that commit. Looking at it, that should solve the issue.
>> Can you confirm that this works, too?
> I was able to test this.
>=20
> I looked in my Proxy Logs via the WUI for when I ran the CU186 update and t=
he four days before that date my proxy log was empty.
>=20
> I then looked in the proxy logs for the days before CU187 was run. I update=
d CU187 the day before the access logs would have been rotated so nearly a we=
ek would have been lost.
>=20
> I can confirm that the access.log is fully present for the whole week befor=
e CU187 was updated so the commit worked perfectly.
>=20
> Regards,
> Adolf.
>>>=20
>>> If it has to stay how do we ensure that users don't lose maybe up to a we=
eks worth of the access.log file if an update is done on the day before acces=
s.log would be rotated to access.log.1 .gz
>>>=20
>>> Although this has always been the case, it doesn't seem right to overwrit=
e the existing access.log file if squid is updated or have I misunderstood so=
mething?
>>>=20
>>> Regards,
>>>=20
>>> Adolf.
>>>=20
>=20
> --=20
> Sent from my laptop


--===============0624317460911659368==--