Hello, Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Di 05 Feb 2008 22:55:16 CET): > On Tue, Feb 05, 2008 at 12:26:22PM +0100, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > > Marc Haber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> (Di 05 Feb 2008 11:46:15 CET): > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 04:05:53PM +0100, Heiko Schlittermann wrote: > > > > The logtail utility fails in using some alternative offset file ... > > > .. as documented. I think last time I supposed it should work that way > > too: > > > > logtail -o <OFFSET> <LOGFILE> # doesn't work (doesn't fit > > to manpage) > > That does not look like a bug to me then. Is the error message helpful?
There was no error message. It just works as w/o "-o <OFFSET>". This I'd consider a bug at least. > > logtail <LOGFILE> # works (but doesn't fit to > > manpage) > > # but of course, no > > # alternative offset file > > That might be a historically sourced backwards compatibility, which is > not documented on purpose. > > I do not see a bug in the package, the documented call works fine. > Whether the documentation needs to be changed would be Martin's last > call, he will comment in due time. True, not the "binary" is buggy but the docs. But for this reason I still insist on seeing abug in logtail*deb ;) And - enhancing both - the docs and the "binary" shouldn't harm too much. And (at least from my POV) it gives more consistent behaviour of the logtail tool. -- Heiko
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
