From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Michael Tremer To: development@lists.ipfire.org Subject: Re: reversion of access.log commenting out in rootfile Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2024 10:57:07 +0100 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0740595854905237313==" List-Id: --===============0740595854905237313== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello, I am going to reply on Arne=E2=80=99s behalf... > On 9 Aug 2024, at 16:25, Adolf Belka wrote: >=20 > Hi Arne, >=20 > I saw that my patch for commenting out the access.log in the rootfile had b= een reverted. >=20 > https://git.ipfire.org/?p=3Dipfire-2.x.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3D97067db7862450bb4= 0d4e9188627d6b5585bf931 >=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 othe= r permissions than 644. 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=3D6f83ae4c95904= 5c866c08cc326f36ff645952ae4 Can you confirm that this works, too? >=20 > If it has to stay how do we ensure that users don't lose maybe up to a week= s worth of the access.log file if an update is done on the day before access.= log would be rotated to access.log.1 .gz >=20 > Although this has always been the case, it doesn't seem right to overwrite = the existing access.log file if squid is updated or have I misunderstood some= thing? >=20 > Regards, >=20 > Adolf. >=20 --===============0740595854905237313==--