Aengus wrote:
>You are missing one critical part of the puzzle - you can have many
>different LOGFILES in the Analog.cfg, and each one can have a different
>format, so the LOGFORMAT directive must act on LOGFILE entries that come
>after them. And if you specify the logfile on the command line,
Jean-Christian Imbeault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ok, further testing shows that there is a discrepancy in how analog
> handles command line args vs cfg file directives.
>
> If have a config file with:
>
> LOGFILE access.log
>
> and do:
>
> #analog /www/logs/2002/06/26/access.log
>
> I get a bu
Jean-Christian Imbeault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes I did put LOGFORMAT before LOGFILE. Though I run analog from the
> command line like this:
>
> #analog ./access.log
>
> So I would think that the cfg file's LOGFILE directive is ignored?
More to the point, the LOGFORMAT directives are igno
Ok, further testing shows that there is a discrepancy in how analog
handles command line args vs cfg file directives.
If have a config file with:
LOGFILE access.log
and do:
#analog /www/logs/2002/06/26/access.log
I get a bunch of "invalid" lines spewed out. *BUT* if I put this line in
the c
Yes I did put LOGFORMAT before LOGFILE. Though I run analog from the
command line like this:
#analog ./access.log
So I would think that the cfg file's LOGFILE directive is ignored?
Also am I right in thinking that the order of the various LOGFORMAT
directives is unimportant?
I'm still confus
--- uma mahadevan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >
2 I need more customisation of the request
> report.
> What I am aiming for is all of the following entries
> to be combined & all of these requests to be totalled
> as just one line in line with 'infotrac' in the
> request report.
> Do I und
